get_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; "Devuelve" implies a pure read with no side effects, but this is never stated outright. The consistency guarantee (shared with MCP prompts and the spec-builder-middleware agent, no desynchronized copies) is genuinely useful context beyond the name, yet nothing is said about the response form or whether the procedure text depends on workspace state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the flow variants before the design rationale. Both sentences earn their place, though the second is more architectural justification than invocation guidance and could be tightened.

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-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step procedure keyed by flow) and why it is authoritative. The only gap is the shape of the returned procedure, which the agent must discover by calling it.

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 enum values are already documented in the schema, including what greenfield vs refactor mean. The description's parenthetical listing of the three values essentially repeats the schema, adding no syntax, default, or selection advice beyond it, 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 and resource ("Devuelve el procedimiento paso a paso de un flujo") and enumerates the three supported flow values, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also asserts it is the sole source of the procedure, which implicitly separates it from template/rule lookups, but it never names or contrasts with a specific sibling such as get_template or get_rules.

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 claim that this is the "ÚNICA fuente del procedimiento" implies the agent should call it rather than rely on prompt copies or the installed agent, which is useful routing context. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of prerequisites or ordering relative to scaffold_service or inspect_project.

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