kit_get_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'No authentication required' but does not disclose potential error cases, rate limits, or whether the returned source is exactly the raw file. The behavior is straightforward but could be more transparent.

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 a single, direct sentence followed by a standalone note about authentication. Every word is necessary, with no filler or redundancy.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It could mention what the tool returns (raw .ts source) and any limitations, but it covers the essential purpose and parameters.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions that include examples (e.g., 'kit folder name, e.g. "content-generation"'), adding clarity beyond the schema's property definitions. This helps the agent understand the expected values.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the raw .ts source of a specific flow inside a kit', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'kit_get' (which likely gets kit metadata) and 'dev_get_flows' (which lists flows).

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?

While the description notes 'No authentication required', it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'dev_get_flows', 'dev_list_all_flows', or 'graph_load_project_flows'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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