Get Flow Authoring Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a pure reference lookup that mutates nothing. It adds value by scoping the guide's contents (wiring, config.transform, modifiers, variables, validation failures) so the agent knows what knowledge it will gain. It does not describe the shape or size of the returned text, which is the only remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads what the guide contains, the second front-loads the call-ordering rule. Every clause earns its place by naming a concrete topic area an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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 zero-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the definition says enough about what will be returned and when to call it. It could have noted that the guide is long or that it should be cached across calls, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call with no hidden inputs.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the complete guide to writing Appmixer flow descriptor JSON') and then enumerates the covered topics: structure, wiring, input mapping, error handling, and validation failures. An agent can distinguish this reference tool from siblings like create_flow or validate_flow without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Read this before calling create_flow or update_flow,' naming the exact sibling tools and the ordering condition that selects it. This is a clear when-to-use directive with named alternatives rather than implied usage.

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