Get Flow Status

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the read-only nature, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the tool returns the stage as 'running' or 'stopped', which is important because no output schema is provided. It does not mention error behavior for invalid IDs or missing flows, but for a simple read-only status query this is a meaningful addition beyond the annotation.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource and then immediately clarifying the possible return values.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and a complete input schema, the description covers the essential behavior by stating the returned stage values. It lacks edge-case guidance such as what happens if the flow does not exist, which prevents a perfect score, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 'id' parameter is fully documented there. The description adds no additional meaning about the ID parameter (e.g., format, source, or required permissions), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without exceeding it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the current stage of an Appmixer flow') and enumerates the possible values, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_flow or list_flows, which keeps it just below the top score.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: check whether a flow is running or stopped. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_flow (for full details) or start_flow/stop_flow (for lifecycle changes), leaving the agent to infer the correct context.

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