flow_discover_ui

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an important non-obvious side effect: it 'Updates the internal selectors map.' That mutation info is valuable. But it omits auth requirements, browser-state effects, error behavior, and how the result is surfaced, leaving substantial gaps.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the side effect trailing. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema, but with no output schema the description does not explain what 'discover' returns (a list of elements? just the internal map?) or how the agent accesses the discovered elements. Adequate but leaves the return/usage outcome underspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, page, campaign, and project_name in detail, including enum-like options and host restrictions. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Navigate to a Google Flow page and discover all interactive elements (buttons, inputs, links, headings),' which clearly describes the action and its scope. However it does not distinguish itself from sibling flow_open, which also appears to navigate to Flow pages, leaving the agent to guess which to select.

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 hints at purpose ('for robust automation') but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. It never explains how it relates to flow_open or when discovering UI should precede another sibling like flow_generate_image.

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