analyze_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It describes the action as fetching and parsing metadata, implying a read operation, but it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: (1) state the tool's action and result, (2) specify the output structure, (3) provide usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and provides some contextual flow. However, it lacks details on preconditions, error handling, and idempotency. For a tool fetching complex metadata, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, with parameters already well-described in the schema (flow_api_name and sn_table). The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the tool operates on a Salesforce flow and a ServiceNow table, which is already implied. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Fetch and parse a Salesforce flow's full metadata' and 'Returns structured breakdown of trigger, variables, and elements'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by specifying the target (Salesforce flow) and the scope (full metadata).

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 provides clear workflow instructions: 'After calling, present the analysis to the user and ask the clarifying questions required for Checkpoint F1. Only call build_flow after user confirms the understanding is correct.' This tells when to use the tool in relation to other steps and the sibling build_flow.

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