Get config flow state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value: it emphasizes the call does not advance the flow, describes the return shape (same as start_config_flow's result) and documents error behavior (httpx.HTTPStatusError on unknown/expired flow_id). No auth or rate-limit notes, hence not 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?

Front-loaded core sentence, then tightly labeled Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors lines. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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 single-param read tool with annotations and an output schema, this covers purpose, routing to siblings, return shape and failure mode. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema itself already documents that flow_id comes from start_config_flow or list_flows_in_progress. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the current state of a config flow') plus a crucial scope qualifier ('without advancing it'), and the endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from integrations_start_config_flow and integrations_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?

Explicit 'Use when' clause names the scenario (re-checking a flow's current step/schema after losing an earlier response) and a 'Not for' clause routes the agent to integrations_submit_config_flow_step for supplying answers. When/when-not/alternative are all present.

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