flow_get_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the context and importance of feedback but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or authentication requirements. It implies a safe read operation but does not explicitly confirm.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies when to use, and the third provides actionable guidance. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 simplicity (single parameter, straightforward purpose), the description adequately covers the context of use and the expected action upon receiving feedback. It does not detail the return format, but given the absence of an output schema, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use 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 covers the single parameter flowId with a description. The tool description adds context about why the flow ID is used (to retrieve feedback) but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: retrieving user feedback for a flow. It specifies the resource ('flow') and the action ('get feedback'). It further distinguishes usage scenarios by mentioning specific phases (implementation plan approval, code review rejection), which helps differentiate it from other tools like flow_comments_get.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: at the start of a session, and for specific feedback types. It also instructs the agent to address feedback before continuing. However, it does not mention alternatives or situations where the tool should not be used.

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