Get Flow project status columns

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels the operation as a query ('조회합니다'), implying read-only intent, but does not mention authentication requirements, permissions, potential errors, or side effects. This minimal information is insufficient for safe autonomous invocation.

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 clearly states the function. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the returned 'list' contains, but it only says 'status columns' without specifying fields, format, or error handling. Essential context like project membership requirements or rate limits is missing, making the tool poorly specified for complex autonomous workflows.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, with only userId having a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. projectId, apiKey, and baseUrl remain unexplained, forcing the agent to infer their purpose from the tool name and context. This is a significant gap.

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 ('retrieves the list') and the specific resource ('status columns of a Flow project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tool get_project_columns, which likely handles general columns, by explicitly narrowing scope to 'status columns'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use get_project_columns for other columns' or any exclusion criteria. The only hint is the tool name itself, which implies a specific use case but does not explicitly state it.

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