flow_use_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool opens a tool and optionally fills parameters, but it does not mention potential side effects like creating projects (suggested by project_name/campaign params) or whether it navigates the UI. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with state-changing potential.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place by succinctly conveying the tool's 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. While the description is concise, it doesn't explain the behavior of opening a tool in terms of project management (campaign/project_name) or what happens after opening. Considering the presence of sibling tools and the generic nature of this tool, more context would improve completeness.

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%, and the description mentions 'optionally fill its configuration parameters' which aligns with the params field. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Open') and resource ('any tool by name in Google Flow'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific tools like flow_use_grid_architect. It effectively communicates the generic, tool-agnostic scope.

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 implies a generic use case ('any tool by name') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over specific sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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