cigchat_flow_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the required 'Manage Team' scope and the HTTP endpoint, providing some insight into authorization. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what the response includes, or any rate limits or pagination, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get the flow summary'), includes the endpoint, and states the required scope. There is no wasted wording, and the essential information is presented efficiently.

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 relatively simple, but with no output schema, the description does not clarify what the flow summary contains or how to interpret the response. While the schema covers parameters well, the description lacks broader context about return shape or typical use, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (range and flow_ns) with clear descriptions of accepted values and behavior, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 'Get the flow summary' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the endpoint. It is distinct from siblings like flow_agent_summary and flow_custom_events_summary, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from these alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope of 'flow summary'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions use cases nor exclusions, and fails to indicate that other summary tools (e.g., flow_agent_summary, flow_custom_events_summary) might be more appropriate for specific needs. The only secondary context is the 'Manage Team' scope requirement, which is about authorization, not usage.

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