config_describe_contact_flow

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

No annotations are present, and the description only restates the action without revealing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions, or response characteristics. 'Get contact flow details' adds little beyond the tool 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?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It captures the core purpose but omits essential context, balancing brevity with inadequacy.

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?

With no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and only a terse statement, the description is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and an output schema. The output schema exists, but the description does not help the agent understand when or how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. Although parameter names like instance_id and contact_flow_id are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional context or detail about them.

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 ('contact flow details'), clearly indicating a describe operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like config_list_contact_flows and config_create_contact_flow, but does not elaborate on what 'details' includes.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as config_list_contact_flows or config_describe_queue. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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