nifi_flow_tree

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior: depth bounds the recursion and beyond-depth groups are returned by id/name only, plus the backing endpoint. It doesn't mention pagination or response size limits, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three tight sentences: the what, the backing endpoint/behavior, and the guidance. Front-loaded with purpose and zero filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return format needn't be described. Given a read-only overview tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the meaning of depth and the entry-point guidance. It leaves pg_id and include_components unaddressed but the core is complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of `depth` ('bounds the recursion; groups beyond it are listed by id and name only'), which is the key non-obvious parameter behavior. It doesn't cover pg_id or include_components, so not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (recursive process-group tree with processors and connections) and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the high-level 'understand a flow's shape' entry point. The final sentence 'Start here to understand a flow's shape' explicitly routes the agent.

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?

Gives clear context ('Start here') positioning it as an overview tool versus the many list/get siblings. However it does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., nifi_get_process_group_contents) or state when-not-to-use.

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