flyte-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Fetch') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with external systems, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 complexity of fetching execution status (which may involve external APIs), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or operational constraints, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id' which hints at the 'run_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what a Flyte run ID is, its format, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic structure.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('current status of a Flyte run'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_flyte_recent_runs' or 'run_flyte_task', which would require a more specific distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid run ID, or compare it to siblings like 'list_flyte_recent_runs' for broader status overviews, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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