get_flow

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

There are no annotations to provide safety or behavioral hints. The description only says 'Get details,' which implies a read operation, but offers no information about return structure, error handling, or permissions. This is insufficient for full behavioral 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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the specific verb and resource.

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 simple single-parameter getter, the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent doesn't know what 'details' are included. There is no mention of behavior for nonexistent flows. A more complete description would list typical fields or note error conditions.

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 already fully describes the 'flow' parameter as 'Flow name or ID.' The description repeats this same information without adding any nuance about formats, validation, or examples. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (get) and the resource (specific flow), and specifies that it can be addressed by name or ID. It implicitly contrasts with list_flows for listing all flows, but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_flows or list_flow_tickets. The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be chosen.

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