Osmedeus Flow

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

The description warns that 'an Osmedeus flow can execute shell commands,' implying potential destructive capability. However, the annotations state destructiveHint: false, which contradicts this warning. Since the description contradicts the annotation, this dimension receives the lowest score.

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, consisting of two sentences that are direct and to the point. It efficiently conveys the core action, the restriction, and the reason for the restriction without unnecessary detail.

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 description gives important context about the security restriction and the requirement for human approval, but it lacks details about what Osmedeus flows actually do, what the 'target' is used for, or what output to expect. This leaves some contextual gaps for an agent deciding when to use the tool.

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 lists two parameters (flow and target) but provides no descriptions. The tool description does not explain what 'target' represents or what values 'flow' can take (beyond the default 'general'). With zero parameter coverage in the schema and no compensation in the description, this scores poorly.

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's purpose: 'Run a named Osmedeus flow from the reviewed directory.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the restriction to the reviewed directory distinguishes it from other flow-related tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage guidance by explicitly forbidding arbitrary flow paths and explaining the security reason (flows can execute shell commands). This tells the agent when it is safe to use the tool and what constraints apply. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, so it loses one point.

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