execute_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the internal routing and pipeline steps but does not mention side effects, mutability, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any consequences of execution. The term 'execute' implies action, but safety or resource implications are absent.

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 well-organized with a concise opening, a bulleted list of flows, and a separate argument section. Every sentence is informative; no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with 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?

Despite the complexity of executing a multi-step epistemic flow, the description covers the pipeline logic and argument semantics. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. However, it lacks any mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., required workspace state).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description supplies all parameter meanings. It clearly defines 'query' as user query/event, 'diff_text' as raw diff for change-driven flows, 'is_event' for change-driven flag, and 'event_type' with examples. This adds full value beyond the empty schema.

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 executes a full canonical epistemic flow end-to-end, listing the specific pipeline steps and their triggers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like epistemic_route, which is likely just the routing step.

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 explains the five flow types (Fast Answer, Verify Before Answer, etc.) and their triggering conditions through the Epistemic Ingress Controller, providing context on when each path is used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives from the sibling list.

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