Get Flow Card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds that the tool returns argument details (names, types, dropdown values, ranges), offering some behavioral context but no additional traits like auth or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, the first sentence immediately states the purpose and second provides usage motivation. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple get operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the returned information (arguments with details) adequately. Missing potential error behavior or return format specifics, but overall sufficient for its complexity.

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 coverage is 50%, with id and type described generically. The description only repeats 'by type + id' without adding meaning such as format, constraints, or examples. It does not compensate for the schema's limited descriptions.

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 retrieves the full definition of a flow card by type and id, including arguments. This precisely identifies the resource and action, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flow_cards or get_flow.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool to learn what arguments a card needs when building a flow. While it doesn't formally exclude when not to use it, the guidance is clear and contextually sufficient.

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