get_flow_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (details including flows and subgroups) but does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or output format. For a simple read operation, the core behavior is clear, but additional context is missing.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key included elements. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content. It does not explain error cases or the exact structure of the returned details, but the mention of 'flows and subgroups' provides sufficient expectation for most use cases.

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% (groupId described as 'Flow group ID'), and the description adds no further meaning beyond that. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('a specific flow group') and explicitly states what is included ('its flows and subgroups'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flow_groups (which lists all groups) and list_flows_in_group (which only lists flows).

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 implies usage when a specific flow group ID is known and details are needed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_flow_groups or list_flows_in_group. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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