nr_get_flow_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the key parameter's behavior but does not mention error handling (e.g., non-existent flow_id or key), authentication needs, or side effects. The 'Read' verb implies non-destructive, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 that immediately states the purpose and usage pattern. It is concise without extraneous words, front-loading the key action and parameter behavior.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description is nearly complete. It covers the main functionality and key parameter behavior. Missing details like error handling are minor for this read-only tool, but a note on precondition (flow must exist) would push it to 5.

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 0% with no descriptions in the schema. The description adds meaning for the 'key' parameter (list vs. value retrieval) but does not clarify 'flow_id' beyond being required. For two parameters, this is partial compensation. Baseline for low coverage is 4, but the lack of flow_id explanation reduces it to 3.

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 tool reads Node-RED flow context variables. It specifies two modes: listing all keys (key=null) and retrieving a specific value (key set). This differentiates it from sibling tools like nr_get_flow or nr_get_function_code.

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 explains how to use the key parameter (null to list, specific key to get value). It implies the tool is for reading context, not writing, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. For a simple read operation, this is adequate.

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