flow_discover_ui

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of updating an internal selectors map for robust automation, which is important for understanding side effects. However, it does not specify authorization needs or potential destructive actions, but the absence of annotations places the burden on the description, which it meets reasonably well.

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 purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, but could benefit from a brief structure break for readability.

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 has one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its main side effect. It would be improved by mentioning the output (e.g., 'Returns the discovered selectors' or 'Updates the map silently').

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% with the page parameter described in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Description clearly states the tool navigates to a Google Flow page and discovers interactive elements, with the specific verb 'Navigate' and resource 'Google Flow page'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like flow_open_characters by focusing on discovering UI elements rather than just opening pages.

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 use for discovering interactive elements for automation but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flow_open_characters or flow_open_tools_gallery. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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