directus_get_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only, the description doesn't confirm this, nor does it describe the return format, error handling for invalid IDs, or whether this operation has side effects like logging.

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 appropriately brief at one sentence, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata rather than helpful documentation. The core sentence is efficient but sacrifices necessary detail for the sake of brevity.

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 lack of output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is insufficient. For a tool retrieving complex automation flow configurations (which typically include triggers, operations, and logic), it should describe what 'flow details' encompasses or what structure the response takes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both required parameters. It implicitly references the 'id' parameter via 'by ID' but provides no information about the 'site' parameter, which is critical for multi-tenant Directus setups. This leaves half the required parameters undocumented.

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), resource (flow details), and scoping method (by ID). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like directus_list_flows (which lists all) and directus_create_flow (which creates). However, it doesn't specify what a 'flow' is in the Directus context, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no semantic value.

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 provided on when to use this versus directus_list_flows (for finding flows when ID is unknown) or directus_trigger_flow (for execution). No mention of prerequisites like needing a valid flow ID or site identifier.

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