Get Flow

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

readOnlyHint already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful context beyond it: the descriptor is the JSON definition of components and their wiring, and it can be large. It does not mention pagination, failure modes, or permissions, but for a read-only lookup those are modest gaps.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core purpose, then uses a parenthetical and a conditional clause to cover the optional behavior. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does: metadata plus an optional flow descriptor. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only return-shape detail for the metadata portion is unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description amplifies include_descriptor meaningfully by explaining what the descriptor contains and tying it to a use case, but adds nothing for the required id parameter. Baseline 3 with a small lift is appropriate.

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 ('Get a single Appmixer flow by ID') plus what is returned (metadata, optionally the descriptor). It implicitly separates itself from list_flows and get_flow_status/logs by being the single-flow fetch, but never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional for the optional parameter ('Set include_descriptor=true when you need component IDs') and names the downstream consumer (trigger_component), which is real routing guidance. It omits any when-not to use this tool versus list_flows or get_flow_status, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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