get_flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes actions and trigger, giving the agent an idea of what to expect. However, it does not disclose any edge cases, permission requirements, or nuances beyond the annotations.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and is highly efficient.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, read-only hints), the description is fairly complete. It explains what will be returned (full details, actions, trigger) and is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. It could mention return format, but the 'full details' phrase covers the essentials.

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 covers 100% of the parameter description (name_or_sysid with a clear explanation). The tool description does not add anything beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details of a Flow Designer flow, explicitly mentioning actions and trigger. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flows (which lists flows) and get_flow_execution (which focuses on execution details).

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 when you need complete configuration details of a specific flow, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of list_flows or get_flow_execution as alternatives, so usage guidance is only implied.

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