flow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the orchestration nature and mentions turbo's rich feedback, but it does not elaborate on side effects, error handling (though schema covers on_error/if_not_found), or how the tool interacts with subordinate tools. It is not misleading, but it is minimal in behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core concept (orchestration) and immediately lists the three modes. Every clause adds value with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (nested steps, multiple modes, no output schema), the description covers the high-level functionality and key usage distinctions. It omits details like error handling strategies and loop specifics, but those are present in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope and how to start using it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds only the note that deviceId is injected per device (already in schema) and turbo is experimental, which is minor. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Flow orchestration' and enumerates the three action types (batch, run, parallel) with specific distinctions. This goes beyond a generic verb+resource and provides immediate differentiation between the modes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each action type (batch for multi-command, run for automation with loops/conditionals, parallel for same action on multiple devices). It also mentions the experimental turbo option and the exclusion of system_shell and browser_evaluate in steps. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to direct alternatives, though it's implicitly an orchestration meta-tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.