get_flow_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is correct, but the description does not disclose what exactly 'detailed information' includes, potential 404 errors, or any required permissions. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose in a concise manner.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what 'detailed information' includes. However, for a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate. It does not specify the return structure or error scenarios, leaving some ambiguity.

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 already provides a complete description for the single parameter (workspaceId), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description only reiterates 'by workspace ID', adding no new meaning beyond what the schema states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('detailed information about a specific Arc flow API'), and the scope ('by workspace ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_flow_apis and delete_flow_api by explicitly targeting a single flow API.

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 context by mentioning 'specific' and 'by workspace ID', contrasting with listing operations, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_flow_apis. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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