Acompanhar gerações do Flow

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call blocks and waits only within the call's time budget, and that files are always written to a fixed path (/app/%LOCALAPPDATA%\mcp-google/saidas/flow) regardless of client. This is useful side-effect context for a tool marked readOnlyHint=false. It omits timeout length and what is reported for items still pending.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the polling/download purpose, followed by the repeat instruction and the output-path caveat; there is no filler. The path sentence is long but carries information an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the essential return-side behavior: it downloads finished files and signals via 'repeat until nothing pending' that some work may remain. What the tool actually reports back for still-pending items is left unstated, a minor gap.

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 100%, so the single 'lote' parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description never mentions the batch/media id at all, so it adds nothing on parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it monitors in-progress generations (videos, images, extensions), waits during the call, and downloads completed output. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related siblings flow_listar and flow_baixar, whose scopes could plausibly overlap with this one.

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 line 'Repita até não haver mais nada pendente' gives an explicit polling pattern, which is genuine usage guidance. But it gives no recommendation for choosing it over flow_listar or flow_baixar, and no exclusion that says when not to call it.

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