Inspect Google Flow Account UI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content: the landing-page case returns workspaceAvailable=false with a stop instruction, and browsing/scrolling it is prohibited. It stops short of describing the capability map's contents or latency, keeping it at a strong 4.

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 sentences, no filler, and the highest-value constraint (MANDATORY before generation) is front-loaded. Each sentence carries a distinct instruction: mandate, return value, and exclusion.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return shape (live capability map) and one key field (workspaceAvailable). For a zero-required-parameter read-only inspection tool this is close to complete, though it omits failure modes other than the landing page.

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 single optional accountId is fully documented in the schema, including the default-to-most-recent behavior and when to supply it. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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 states a specific action (verify the real Flow workspace) and a specific output (a language-independent live capability map), and identifies the tool as a mandatory pre-generation step. It also distinguishes itself from siblings and from generic automation, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit 'MANDATORY before generation' establishes when to call it, and 'never substitute generic browser/computer-use automation on the Flow website' names the excluded alternative. The landing-page branch (stop, never browse or scroll) is a concrete when-not instruction.

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