inspect_flow

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that only metadata is returned by default to save tokens, that adding fields to the include list unlocks headers/bodies, and enumerates all available options. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear model of what to expect, though it doesn't mention potential size limits or error conditions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a prerequisite note, a behavioral note, and a clear Args list with bullet options and an example. Minor redundancy exists because the source of flow_id is mentioned both in the PREREQUISITE and again in the flow_id argument description.

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?

The tool has only two parameters, a clear singular purpose, and an output schema. The description provides all essential context: what it returns, how to control the response, where to get the required ID, and an example. There are no major gaps for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema provides zero descriptions for the two parameters, so the description must fully compensate. It thoroughly explains flow_id as coming from get_traffic_summary or search_traffic, and details each valid value for include with an example. It also clarifies that metadata is the default, which overrides the schema's 'default: null' ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Get full details of a single HTTP flow (request headers, body, response headers, body).' This is a specific, action-oriented statement with a clear resource (HTTP flow) and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_traffic_summary and search_traffic, which retrieve lists of flows, by focusing on a single flow's full details.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context via the PREREQUISITE statement: 'Get flow_id from get_traffic_summary or search_traffic first.' It also explains the default behavior and how to expand with the include parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or describe alternative tools for similar purposes (e.g., extract_from_flow).

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