flow_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the exact status dimensions checked (browser, page, account, queue), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how the response is structured, or whether it performs live checks or returns cached state.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simplistic status-check tool with one fully described parameter, the description covers core purpose and scope. However, without an output schema or annotations, it omits details about return format, potential latency, and any safety characteristics, leaving the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result.

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 description fully documents the 'full' parameter ('Return full status with screenshot'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific context, so the baseline score of 3 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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly enumerates the status components (browser connected, Flow page loaded, account verified, job queue state). It implies a broader scope than individual siblings like flow_account_check or flow_queue_status but does not explicitly name them for differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that flow_queue_status should be used for queue-only details or flow_connect for establishing a connection. The agent is left without explicit selection criteria.

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