get_subflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the tool returns inputs, outputs, and actions, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (pagination, authentication, or edge cases). This is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence: 'Get full details of a subflow including its inputs, outputs, and actions.' Every word adds value with no repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, no output schema, and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return content. It could mention uniqueness constraints or error handling, but these are not critical for a retrieval tool.

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 fully describes the single parameter (name_or_sysid) with 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how names are resolved versus sys_ids.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('subflow'), and the specific scope ('full details including inputs, outputs, and actions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subflows, which lists subflows without full 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_subflows. The verb 'Get' implies retrieval of a specific subflow's details, but there is no stated exclusion for cases where only a summary is needed.

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