prufa_get_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully notes that credential names are returned but not their values. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that states the action, required input, and output content. Every word adds value; 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key return elements (spec, status, credential names). It could mention error cases or permissions, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no description for flow_id). The description indicates that the parameter is the flow's ID, but provides no additional details about format, source, or constraints. A simple string parameter does not require much explanation, but more could be added.

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 it retrieves a single flow by ID and lists the returned fields (compiled spec, status, credential names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prufa_list_flows (which lists multiple flows) and prufa_edit_flow (which modifies).

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 implies the tool is for getting detailed information about a specific flow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like prufa_list_flows or prufa_get_report. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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