get_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it retrieves details and returns a markdown description, but does not explicitly confirm that it is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or how it handles non-existent IDs. This is a gap for a tool in a system with many mutating operations.

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 contains redundancy: the first line and the second sentence essentially repeat the same information. The inclusion of 'ctx' in the Args section adds unnecessary detail not aligned with the schema. Otherwise, the structure is clear with Args and Returns sections, but it is not as concise as it could be.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides enough to understand the resource and return format. It does not mention edge cases or additional context, but for a straightforward getter, this is adequate. The lack of usage guidance is a minor gap, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more.

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 description includes an 'Args' section explaining 'id: ID of the flow to retrieve,' adding meaning beyond the schema, which only names the parameter. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it also mentions a 'ctx' parameter not present in the input schema, which could be confusing.

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 opens with 'Get details about a specific asset flow,' which clearly identifies the action (get details), the resource (asset flow), and the scope (a specific one). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flows or get_asset_flow_analysis_plan.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_flows or other getters. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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