wiki_get_flow_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the return content but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. For a read operation, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second provides a use case. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 input schema is simple (one param), and no output schema exists. The description lists the returned items but does not hint at the output structure (e.g., list format, object shape). It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete regarding output details.

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 has one parameter (flowId) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's meaning or expected format beyond the name 'flowId'. Since the tool is about flow context, the parameter is somewhat self-explanatory, but more guidance would be helpful.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('compact context briefing for a flow') and specifies the contents (outgoing wiki links, backlinks, tags). It differentiates from siblings like wiki_get_briefing by focusing on flow context, but the distinction is not explicit.

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 says 'Use this before writing a plan to pull relevant ADRs/Patterns automatically,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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