flow_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes what is returned but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects, error cases, or read-only nature. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but it could be more explicit.

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 a clear introductory sentence and a bullet list of return fields. It is concise enough to be easily parsed, but the bullet list adds some length. Still, it is efficient for the information provided.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields and usage context. It could mention potential errors (e.g., flow not found) but is otherwise complete for a straightforward retrieval operation.

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 100% for the single required parameter 'flowId'. The schema itself already describes it as 'The flow ID (e.g., "abc123" or full ID)'. The description adds no additional value beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score 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 it retrieves detailed information about a specific flow, listing the exact fields returned (summary, description, acceptance criteria, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flow_list (list all flows) and flow_create (create a new 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 explicitly advises to use this tool before starting work on a flow to understand requirements. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives.

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