get_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The wording 'Get' and 'Read this' signals a non-mutating operation, and the description clearly states what will be returned: a complete graph of nodes, plugin IDs, inputs, and edges. It does not explicitly address side effects or error cases, but for a read-only graphing tool this is reasonably 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and return contents, then follows with the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a single required parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the return value by listing nodes, plugin IDs/inputs, and edges. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact shape of the returned graph, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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%, and the flow_id parameter is already documented as 'Flow ID, from list_flows.' The tool description does not add semantic detail 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 opens with 'Get one flow's complete graph' and specifies the exact contents: every node with its plugin ID and inputs, plus the edges between them. This clearly distinguishes get_flow from siblings like list_flows or get_library by emphasizing the full structural graph.

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 second sentence gives an explicit use case: 'Read this to explain or debug what a library's flow actually does.' It provides clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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