Load a flow's mock config

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, not read-only, not destructive), the description discloses that the tool caches the configuration server-side and returns a cache_key because the config is 'far too large to read directly.' This adds useful behavioral context about side effects and storage that annotations do not capture.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and each clause earns its place. It efficiently explains what the tool does, what it returns, and why the caching design exists.

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 purpose, the caching behavior, the return value (summary + cache_key), and the rationale. An output schema exists to document the exact return shape, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (flow_id and session_id) at 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Fetch and cache') and a distinct resource ('mock-runner configuration for a flow'), and elaborates on what the configuration contains (per-step generation, validation, requirement, save-data logic). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like flow_start or flow_get_status.

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 the tool is used before executing a flow (it 'drives' the flow and the config is cached 'for later execution'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tool is mentioned, leaving usage guidance largely implied.

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