efm_get_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is the full live document, positions it as ground truth, and implies a read-only fetch. It does not overstate side effects or obscure the output nature beyond the provided schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, naming the exact resource (full live Designer flow document), its contents, and the intended use case in two sentences with no filler.

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?

With a single obvious parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the key context: the document is authoritative, current, and should be read before reasoning about a flow. It could mention how to obtain a flowId, but the tool name and schema make this largely unnecessary.

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 0% description coverage and the description only mentions 'flowId' without adding format, provenance, or relationship to other IDs. The parameter name is self-explanatory for flow ID, and the structure is simple, but the description fails to compensate fully for the bare schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the full live Designer flow document for a flowIdKN and enumerates the contained elements (process groups, processors, connections, controller services, parameters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like efm_list_flows or efm_validate_flow.

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?

It gives explicit guidance to read this before reasoning about a flow, establishing when the tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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