get_flow

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it requires a flow credential, defaults to the most recently captured flow, makes two sequential API calls with a context parameter, and truncates oversized questionnaires unless view='raw' is used. This gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's execution without contradicting the annotation.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries operational value: purpose, credential requirement, default behavior, internal call pattern, and large-response handling. The endpoint-level detail is somewhat deep, but it is justified given there is no output schema and the behavior is non-obvious.

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?

The description covers the core operation, prerequisites, defaults, and edge-case behavior, which is strong for a read-only tool with no output schema. It does not state what happens if no flow credential has been captured, nor does it describe error behavior, leaving a small but real gap in completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description re-states the default behavior for flow_id and the compact/raw distinction for view, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for these parameters.

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 ('Read'), names the resource ('HoneyBook questionnaire (flow)'), and enumerates what it reads ('pages, questions and any answers already submitted'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on workspaces, messages, payments, or contracts.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (a flow credential captured by use_flow_link), gives a clear when-not ('a client-portal session will NOT work here'), and explains the default behavior and retry path. It does not name a specific alternative tool for client-portal sessions, only 'vice versa,' so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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