get_flow_options

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioural context: the operation catalogue depends on installed apps, some operations exist in only one scope, and 'global' requires admin. It does not discuss pagination or caching, but with annotations present that is not required.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then rationale, then structured Args/Returns blocks. The Returns block is lengthy and partly overlaps the output schema, but the field-level semantics it supplies (e.g. events_fixed meaning create_flow takes no events, checks with empty entities meaning 'any') are not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

For a complex discovery tool that gates create_flow, the description covers scope semantics, admin restriction, app-dependency variability, and the shape of each returned category. Combined with the existing output schema, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 0% and the only parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining scope as 'user' or 'global' plus the admin-only constraint. It omits the default value ('user' appears only in the schema), keeping it just short of 5.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus the exact resource (what a Flow rule can be built from) and enumerates the four categories returned: operations, entities, events and checks. This clearly separates it from list_flows and create_flow / update_flow in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to read it before calling create_flow, and explains why the result varies (installed apps, scope). It does not name when NOT to use it or explicitly relate it to list_flows, so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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