get_flow

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

The annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description does not conflict with them. Beyond restating single-record retrieval, it adds no behavioral context such as draft or published-state handling, not-found behavior, or the returned representation.

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 extremely compact and puts the operation first, with the second sentence adding single-record lookup scope. Its wording is somewhat redundant and fragmentary, but there is no substantial unnecessary material.

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 one-parameter getter, the definition is sufficient to construct a call, and the annotations cover its safety profile. It is less sufficient for choosing confidently among get_flow, list_flows, and get_flow_definition, or for knowing whether the result is metadata, a full flow, or a draft, with no output schema to fill that gap.

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 100%, and id is already required, integer-typed, and described as "Numeric id." The description's "by id" adds retrieval cardinality but no new parameter semantics such as ID provenance or lookup constraints, so the fully documented schema baseline 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 supplies a clear verb and resource and narrows the operation to retrieving one flow by ID. It does not distinguish the returned flow from the sibling get_flow_definition, so it is clear but not differentiated from relevant siblings.

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 phrase "One flow by id" implies use when a specific numeric ID is already known, so the usage context is partially inferable. It never directs agents to list_flows for discovery or get_flow_definition for definition content, and provides no explicit when-not guidance.

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