get_cloud_flow

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read, so the description's real value is the disclosure of the return boundary: names and a definition hash are returned, but no secrets and no full definition. That negative scoping is exactly the kind of context an annotation cannot carry, and it prevents an agent from calling this expecting the complete flow definition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a semicolon separating capability from exclusion. No filler wording, and every clause contributes either scope or a return-value constraint.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return payload, and the read-only safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a tool whose single required argument is untyped and undescribed, the definition leaves an agent guessing about how to supply the identifier, which is a real completeness gap for an otherwise simple two-parameter tool.

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 coverage is only 50%: environment_profile is documented in the schema, but the sole required parameter 'id' is a bare string with no description, and the description does not clarify whether it is a flow GUID, a display name, or a name scoped to a solution. With half the parameters undocumented the description needs to compensate and does not.

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 ('Read a cloud flow summary') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: trigger, action, connection-reference names, and a definition hash. The word 'summary' plus the sibling 'list_cloud_flows' makes it inferable that this is the single-flow detail read, though the description never names that sibling to draw the contrast explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this after list_cloud_flows to obtain an id, nor when to prefer it over update_cloud_flow, prepare_cloud_flow, or list_cloud_flow_runs. The agent must infer its role purely from the tool name and the sibling list.

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