Read one cloud flow

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

With no annotations, the description must supply the safety profile, and it does declare 'Read-only' plus a size warning that includeDefinition returns the large full definition JSON. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or how tenant/environment defaults are resolved, which are relevant for a 7-parameter tool, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two sentences plus a routing clause, front-loaded with the core question it answers, with zero filler. The 'use X instead' guidance sits at the end where the reader needs it.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return contents (trigger/action names, connection references, optional full definition). Combined with the read-only and size disclosures, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 every parameter including includeDefinition's 'large' caveat is already documented in the schema. The description mirrors that for includeDefinition but adds nothing new about flowId or the environment/auth parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('read one flow') and enumerates the exact payload: trigger and action names, connection references, and the full definition when includeDefinition is set. This distinguishes it clearly from cs_list_flows (listing) and the run-oriented siblings.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use it ('before cs_update_flow', 'to see why a flow cannot be switched on') and names the correct alternatives for a different question ('use cs_list_flow_runs and cs_explain_flow_run instead'). This is a complete routing rule.

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