Get Personalize Experience

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieves' makes clear this is a read-only operation and the subtype constraint is disclosed. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or any special effects for missing refs — acceptable for a simple read, but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then a concise equivalence note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 single-resource read with one required parameter, the description covers what, how to identify the resource, and how it relates to a sibling. The absence of an output schema is offset by the 'Retrieves a single experience' phrasing, though more detail on the returned object would make it fully complete.

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 100% with flowRef documented as 'The unique reference (ref) of the flow definition.' The description adds value by clarifying that this ref should refer specifically to a flow of subtype EXPERIENCE, and that it behaves like flow_get. This enrichment goes beyond the basic schema text.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and a concrete resource: 'a single experience (flow definition with subtype EXPERIENCE) by its ref.' It also explicitly names the sibling equivalent, sitecore_personalize_flow_get, which helps distinguish it from list/execute tools despite being an alias.

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?

It clearly states the tool is equivalent to sitecore_personalize_flow_get and frames it as 'a named convenience for experience-specific workflows,' giving an agent the context to choose it when working specifically with experiences. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the equivalence statement covers the main routing need.

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