conduyt_get_call_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes both draft and published graphs, which is useful payload context and implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not state permissions required, behavior when no published graph exists, or whether a missing/invalid ID errors.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

A simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so not much is strictly required. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could usefully note that the caller must supply an existing ID and that draft/published graphs may individually be absent.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Call flow UUID'). The description adds no format hints, lookup path, or ID-sourcing guidance, so the schema does all the work. For a single fully-documented parameter, that is adequate but minimal.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (one call flow) and states what is returned (draft and published graphs). This distinguishes it from conduyt_list_call_flows and conduyt_get_call_flow_wiring, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as conduyt_list_call_flows (to find an ID), conduyt_get_call_flow_wiring, or conduyt_simulate_call_flow. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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