get_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of information returned (status, categories, validation errors) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention potential errors, permissions, or side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read operation, but more explicit behavioral disclosure would be helpful.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose.

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?

For a simple GET tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the resource accessed and the data included. It is complete enough to guide an agent, though it could mention the return format or explicitly state the read-only nature to be fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The description adds a small amount of context by mentioning specific fields like status and validation_errors, which hints at possible values for the 'fields' parameter, but this overlaps with the schema's example and does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 details of a specific WhatsApp Flow by ID, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_flows (list all) and create_flow (create new). The verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a WhatsApp Flow by ID' are specific and direct.

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 the tool is used when you have a flow_id and need detailed information, as opposed to list_flows for browsing or create_flow for creation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple get operation.

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