Check Flow session

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by listing exactly what is checked (browser, sign-in, balance, etc.) and reaffirms that no charges occur. This provides valuable detail beyond annotations.

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 with no wasted words: first lists reported items, second gives usage instruction. Information is front-loaded and every sentence is valuable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavior. No output schema exists, but the description implies a report format aligned with response_format. Completely adequate for an agent to select and invoke 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the single parameter (response_format) is well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides: 'markdown for reading, json for programmatic use.' Baseline 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 clearly states the tool reports on Google Flow reachability and safety, listing specific checks (browser, sign-in, balance, project, 'Confirm before generating' gate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like generating or mapping.

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 instructs 'Call this first in any Flow session,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also notes 'Never charges,' helping agents decide to use it before credit-related operations.

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