Get Flow Variables

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing what comes back: per-component variable paths plus their schemas. It does not mention whether results are cached, whether an empty/invalid flow errors, or how large flows affect response size, which keeps it off a 5.

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 filler, with the core return shape front-loaded and the workflow guidance second. The quotation of the path syntax does real work rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the path structure and noting schemas are included. Remaining gaps are minor: it doesn't sketch the response envelope (per-component grouping, empty-state behavior) for a tool whose output is the entire product.

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 `id` and `component_id` are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the component-scoping concept by framing results as "available to each component," but adds no format, default, or scoping behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 the output variables of a flow) and goes further by naming the exact returned path format "$.<componentId>.<port>.<field>" with schemas. No sibling tool returns variable paths, so an agent can distinguish it from get_flow, get_flow_status, and get_components from the first sentence alone.

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 trigger ("after create_flow/update_flow") and names the failure mode to avoid ("instead of guessing paths"), which effectively routes the agent away from inventing transform references. It also ties the tool to a concrete downstream use case in config.transform modifiers.

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