get_sidequest_flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds 'Get flow IDs' which is consistent but does not disclose return format, error handling, or behavior for missing sidequests. With strong annotations, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context.

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 sentence that conveys all necessary information. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant words. Every part is justified.

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 has one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and scope. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., array of strings), which could be helpful. Still, it is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 one parameter (sidequest_id, integer) with description 'Sidequest ID'. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which is already descriptive. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra semantics provided.

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 'Get flow IDs for a sidequest' clearly states the verb (get), resource (flow IDs), and scope (for a sidequest). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_all_flows (all flows) or get_flows_for_file (by file).

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The purpose is clear, but the tool does not specify when to use this over similar sibling tools like get_flows_for_theme or get_flows_from_directive. Context implies use for sidequest flows, but lacks exclusion criteria.

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