Get Flow project API schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb '조회합니다' (inquire/retrieve) indicates a read-only operation, which is positive. However, it does not mention authentication, error behavior, or other side effects, so transparency is partial.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function with no filler. However, it is brief to the point of omitting crucial parameter context, so it is not maximally effective despite its brevity.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the parameters, when to use the tool, or what the returned documentation looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has two parameters (toolName, operationId) with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention these parameters at all. The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide or how they affect the query, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 retrieves Metadata, Request, Response, and Error documentation for a project API, using the verb '조회합니다' (retrieves). This distinguishes it from sibling endpoint-focused tools like get_flow_endpoint and list_flow_endpoints, though 'project API' could be more explicit.

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 this tool should be used when schema documentation for a project API is needed, but it provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or conditions for use. Sibling tools exist for endpoints, so clearer guidance would improve this dimension.

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