dataflow_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return characteristics or errors, but it does not contradict the annotations and remains adequate for a simple getter.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource while remaining immediately scannable.

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 two-parameter read-only get, the description is mostly sufficient, especially with full schema coverage. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what 'details' include or how this differs from dataflow_get_definition, leaving some ambiguity for an agent navigating a large sibling set.

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 description coverage is 100%, with self-explanatory parameters 'dataflowId' and 'workspaceId'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific Dataflow Gen2 item.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dataflow_list by emphasizing 'specific' and from dataflow_get_definition by using 'details' rather than 'definition.'

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 word 'specific' implies this is for fetching a single known item, and the required IDs support that inference. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over dataflow_list or dataflow_get_definition, or about prerequisites such as knowing the workspace and dataflow IDs beforehand.

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