get_flow_definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds genuinely new information: the returned definition is the draft when one exists, otherwise the published version. That resolution logic is real behavioral context an agent could not derive from the annotations or schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scoping/fallback rule. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 does some work on the return value by stating it is the draft-or-published definition, but it says nothing about the structure or size of that definition. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only the shape of the returned payload left implicit.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Numeric id."), so the schema already carries the burden. The description adds no further meaning about what the id refers to or how to obtain it, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get a flow definition") and clarifies scope with "The definition alone," which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_flow. However, it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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?

Usage is only implied: "the definition alone" hints that this fetches the raw definition body whereas other flow tools fetch metadata or catalogues. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no stated preconditions.

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