knowledge_check_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It states the tool returns data (flow text + ADR snapshots + instructions) and does not create drafts, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm that no data is modified, leaving some uncertainty.

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, front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and return types (flow text, ADR snapshots, instructions). However, without an output schema, it does not detail the format of the returned data, and the single parameter is not explained. For a simple one-parameter tool this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate for the parameter 'flowId'. The description mentions 'Run a knowledge check on a flow' but does not define what a flowId is or how to obtain one, leaving the agent to infer its meaning.

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 action: 'Run a knowledge check on a flow' specifying it spots drift and identifies missing knowledge. It distinguishes from siblings like knowledge_check_drift by combining both analyses and explicitly noting no draft creation.

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 usage context: 'Use before submitting a flow to review.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('no draft creation'), implying when not to use it, but does not name specific alternative tools for draft creation.

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