get_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is correct, but no additional traits (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effect guarantees) are mentioned. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 succinct sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity of a flow spec and the absence of annotations, the description is too brief. It does not hint at the scope of 'full spec' (e.g., steps, triggers, settings) or what to expect in the output. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden on the description, but the description still lacks sufficient context for an AI agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'by id' without elaborating on the parameter format, constraints, or examples. For a single parameter, this provides little added meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (flow's full spec), and the lookup method (by id). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_flows, which return summaries, and create_flow, which is a mutation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with list_flows (for listing flows) or with get_run (for run details). The description lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use.

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