show_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. The '(read-only)' qualifier is genuinely useful, confirming the tool has no side effects. However, it omits what the view contains, whether values are stale or snapshot-based, and any refresh or format characteristics.

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 dense phrase with no filler, and the safety qualifier is front-loaded. It is concise rather than bloated — the only cost is that extreme brevity leaves semantic gaps, which is better penalized under completeness.

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?

Despite the tool's low configuration complexity, the sparse text fails to disambiguate 'flow' from a crowded sibling set and never explains the output shape (no output schema, no annotation help). An agent would still be uncertain what 'flow tracking' is and how it differs from show_session or show_traffic.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a no-argument invocation.

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 identifies a distinct resource ('flow tracking view') and a read operation, which goes beyond a bare name. However, 'flow' is ambiguous — among siblings like show_traffic, show_session, and show_clienttraffic, the agent cannot tell what specific data this view exposes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use show_flow versus the many neighboring view tools (show_traffic, show_session, show_clienttraffic, show_nat). No context, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent has to guess which monitoring view fits the request.

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