Send Message to Flowise Flow

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and has potential side effects (openWorldHint: true). The description adds a warning about streaming not being recommended for MCP but does not detail other behavioral traits like state changes or authentication needs.

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 well-structured with separate sections for Args, Returns, and Examples, and it front-loads the purpose. However, it is slightly verbose, repeating 'flow' multiple times.

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 tool's complexity (sending messages with optional session and overrides) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main points adequately. It could be more complete by explaining the streaming warning or the nature of override_config.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage for the top-level param, the description lists the key parameters (flow_id, question, session_id, streaming, override_config) and adds context (e.g., streaming not recommended). However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of formal parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 tool sends a message to a chatflow or agentflow and returns a response, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analysis, creation, or deletion 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?

The description provides examples (simple question, with session, override settings) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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