flow_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it does not execute the flow, returns a summary (step_count, shot_count, steps_by_type, cap check), reports parse errors with 1-based line numbers, and requires no emulator. This is substantial behavioral context, though it omits permission/side-effect statements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Parse a flow spec WITHOUT running it — a cheap pre-check'), followed by return details and usage guidance. All sentences are relevant, but the second sentence is slightly long and could be tightened.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and the description covers purpose, behavior, return summary, error handling, and usage context. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. It is complete for a validation tool, though it could mention edge cases or implicit limitations.

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 one parameter (flow_text) with no description, and the description only refers to it as 'flow spec.' It does not explain the format or syntax of the flow spec, so the description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. Since schema coverage is 0%, it partially compensates but not fully.

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 parses a flow spec without running it, explicitly distinguishes it from flow_run (the sibling execution tool), and describes the resulting step summary and error behavior. This is a specific verb+resource with strong sibling differentiation.

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 says 'Needs no emulator, so it is the right tool to validate a flow before spending an emulator run,' which clearly indicates when to use it (before executing a flow) and implies the alternative is running the flow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives by tool name, so it falls short of a 5.

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