Describe a flow

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the meaning of actor tags ('mock' vs 'np'), listing inputs per step, and mentioning parallel/unsolicited steps. No contradiction with annotations.

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, immediately states the core purpose, and then adds only meaningful specifics. No redundant phrases or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only describe tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the content of the response: sequence, actor semantics, inputs, parallel/unsolicited steps. The highlights and annotations fill any remaining context gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters; each has a clear description. The tool description doesn't need to add parameter details, and doesn't, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'The full ordered sequence of one flow' with specific detail about actor tags, inputs, and parallel/unsolicited steps. This distinguishes it from siblings like flow_get_status (status only) and catalog_list_flows (list of 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when a complete, step-by-step breakdown of a flow is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the clear contextual detail makes the use case evident. Slight improvement would be explicitly pointing to alternatives for status-only checks.

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