integrations_get_config_flow

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

The description explicitly states it is a read-only operation ('without advancing'), indicating no side effects. However, with no annotations, it could further note that it does not modify any state, but the current phrasing is sufficient for transparency.

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 extremely concise – one sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No unnecessary words, and every word adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and a single parameter, the description is mostly complete. It lacks parameter description, which is a minor gap, but otherwise covers the tool's purpose and behavior adequately.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what 'flow_id' is or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 'Get the current state of a config flow (without advancing)' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'config flow state', and explicitly distinguishes from advancing, which differentiates it from siblings like submit_config_flow_step.

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 phrase 'without advancing' implies it is for inspection only, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., list_flows_in_progress, submit_config_flow_step). The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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