flow_use_tool

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether opening a tool executes it, requires authentication, or has side effects. The agent is left guessing about the tool's actual impact.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it omits important context that would justify its brevity, making it underspecified rather than efficiently informative.

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 complexity of opening 'any tool' and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain return values, execution behavior, or how the tool fits into the overall workflow. It is insufficient for an agent to use reliably.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the description adds little beyond stating that params are optional. The mention of 'optionally fill its configuration parameters' aligns with the schema but provides no additional meaning.

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 verb 'Open' and the resource 'any tool by name in Google Flow', and it distinguishes from sibling tools by being a generic tool opener. However, 'open' could be interpreted as merely opening the UI rather than executing the tool, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., flow_use_grid_architect, flow_generate_image). The description does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives.

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