get_task_flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds context about architectural flow IDs and the connection to codebase navigation, but does not disclose further behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of result format or pagination). With strong annotations, the description is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Two sentences, each with distinct value: first states the action and output, second explains usage. No wasted words. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. Combined with annotations and high schema coverage, the information is complete enough for correct invocation. No additional information (e.g., return format) is strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'task_id' is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description mentions task in the context sentence but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 action ('Get the architectural flow IDs for a task') and explains the purpose ('understand which part of the codebase a task touches and find relevant files'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on files or directives rather than tasks, but lacks explicit differentiation from closely related flow-retrieval tools.

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 implies usage context ('Use to understand which part of the codebase a task touches') but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or list alternative tools. With many sibling flow tools (e.g., get_flows_for_file, get_directive_flows), a mention of exclusions would improve clarity.

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