flowapi_system_info

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned and does not mention side effects (none expected, but not confirmed), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is safe to call frequently. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have access implications.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no nested objects), the description provides the core information about what is returned. However, it omits behavioral context such as idempotency, authorization needs, or whether the tool is safe to call from any context. For a tool with no annotations, the description should cover these basics to be 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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' with a clear resource 'system information' and elaborates on what's included ('configuration and connectivity status'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'flowapi_health_check', which likely returns only health status, not full configuration.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the closely related sibling 'flowapi_health_check'. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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