Get Flow Accounts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read with no side effects, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the useful detail that accounts may be unassigned ("if any"), but says nothing about what happens for flows with no account-requiring components, ordering, or response shape.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero redundant or filler wording. The parenthetical "(if any)" is compact and adds real semantic value about nullable assignments.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what it returns at a conceptual level (component-to-account mapping). The only mild gap is the absence of an output schema and any hint about the returned structure or the behavior when no accounts are involved.

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% and the single required parameter `id` is documented as the flow ID, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond that (e.g., accepted ID format or where to obtain the flow ID), which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") and a precisely scoped resource: the components of a flow that need a connected third-party account, plus the currently assigned account. That distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like list_accounts (accounts themselves) and assign_account (mutation), though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_flow, get_flow_variables, or list_accounts, nor any precondition mentioned. The usage is only inferable from the wording "require a connected third-party account," which suggests an inspection/diagnostic context.

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