flow_comments_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns the same Markdown section as flow_get, marks resolved comments with [✓ resolved], and leaves wikilinks raw. This gives clear expectations for the agent.

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 brief yet comprehensive, with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points listing use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, how it differs from flow_get, and special notes about resolved comments and wikilinks. It is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

The schema already describes the sole parameter 'flowId' with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the parameter is a flow ID. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 verb ('reload'), the resource ('discussion/comments for a flow'), and the output format ('Markdown section'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'flow_get' by emphasizing that it only fetches comments, not the entire flow.

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 explicit use cases: refreshing comments without re-fetching the full flow and viewing resolution status. It also explains that wikilinks remain raw. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., when full flow context is needed).

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