get_flow_by_name

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (get by name) and adds the adjective 'documented' as a constraint, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, authentication needs, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. Minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource clearly stated. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema, it omits return value details (what a 'documented flow' looks like) and does not disambiguate from the sibling tool. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 the 'name' parameter described as 'IVR name'. The description repeats this same context, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'documented Genesys flow' with a clear lookup scope ('by IVR name'). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_ivrs' by targeting flows rather than IVR lists.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The sibling tool 'get_ivrs' is not mentioned, and the description does not clarify when to choose this over getting IVRs. Guidance is only implicit via the IVR name parameter.

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