get_flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context by disclosing what the payload contains and the downstream constraint that updates require a full-document round-trip. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g., unknown flow_id) or whether the definition includes connection-bound secrets, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then contents, then the sequencing rule — no filler. The middle sentence partially duplicates what the existing output schema already conveys about returned fields, so it is not perfectly lean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still gives a useful summary of the definition payload and the mandatory read-before-write workflow. The only real gap is that the identifier format for flow_id is left undefined.

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 0% and the single parameter flow_id has no title beyond 'Flow Id', so the description must carry the meaning but does not say whether it is a numeric ID, GUID, or a flow name. The rest of the description is about payload and sequencing rather than the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get one flow) plus its scope (the full definition, the JSON behind the Code view) and enumerates payload contents (trigger names, action names, complete definition dict). This is clearly distinguishable from list_flows, which the sibling name implies returns summaries.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up tool (update_flow_definition) and the condition that links them: the API has no partial update, so the whole definition must be fetched, modified, and sent back. That is a concrete when-to-use rule with a stated rationale, not an inference.

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