flow_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool checks connection-related details and implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe side effects, error handling, or return format. It adds some context beyond a bare 'check status' but lacks deeper behavioral specifics.

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 concise: one sentence specifying the check and one giving usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, with no redundant wording or unnecessary details.

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 simplicity (no params, no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat complete but misses return value information. It tells the agent what is checked and when to call it, but it does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the result, which would be valuable since there is no output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters.

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 checks a connection to the Google Flow Chrome window, detailing specific aspects (signed-in session, account, open project, credit balance). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image and download_image, which serve entirely different purposes.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this first when something fails.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. Still, the clear directive covers a key usage scenario.

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