dataflow_get_definition

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by stating that the operation is 'long-running' and that it writes definition files to a specified output directory. It does not fully describe file-overwrite behavior or how completion is surfaced, but it does disclose the key side effect and latency trait.

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 short sentences convey the action, target resource, latency characteristic, and side effect with no wasted words. The most decision-relevant detail ('long-running') is front-loaded, and the file-writing behavior is stated immediately.

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 read-only export-style operation with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves gaps around what 'long-running' means operationally (e.g., whether the agent must poll or wait) and what the tool returns or how success is indicated. There is no output schema, so the description carries more responsibility for explaining the result, and it does not fully do so.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with clear meanings. The description only reinforces the outputDirectoryPath purpose and adds no deeper per-parameter semantics such as expected path format, directory creation behavior, or file naming conventions.

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 action ('Get the definition') and the resource ('Dataflow Gen2 item'), and adds the concrete side effect of writing definition files to an output directory. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like dataflow_get because it targets definition export rather than item metadata, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dataflow_get, dataflow_update, or other get_definition tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get the definition'; there are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent route to this tool confidently.

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