get_flow

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

Without annotations, the description bears full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON metadata by default and explains the return format (base64 for other docTypes). It does not mention error handling or auth, but the read-only nature is clear and well-explained.

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?

Two sentences convey all necessary information, front-loading the core action. Every word serves a purpose—no fluff.

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 output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs: retrieval by ID, parameter meanings, and return format variations. No gaps for a single-resource read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining docType options, default behavior, and clarifying flow_id origin ('assigned by Approved Platform'), improving understanding beyond the 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 states the tool retrieves a flow by identifier, specifying the action and resource. It also explains the docType parameter, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like search_flows or submit_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?

The description implies usage when you have a flow identifier and need to retrieve its metadata or document, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., search_flows for listing). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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