Get Flow endpoint metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read-only lookup ('조회합니다') and specifies the returned fields, but it does not disclose potential errors, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and what the parameter means. It lacks explicit usage guidance but is otherwise complete for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 explicitly states '엔드포인트 ID로' (by endpoint ID), giving semantic meaning to the single 'id' parameter beyond the raw schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is valuable and clarifies what kind of identifier is expected.

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 uses a specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and identifies the exact resource: Flow OpenAPI path, HTTP method, and document URL by endpoint ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flow_endpoints (listing) and flow_request (executing).

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 when you have a specific endpoint ID and need its metadata, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus list_flow_endpoints or alternatives. No when-not conditions or alternative tool names are provided, so guidance remains implicit.

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