flow_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it mutates or resets local state, whether it is expensive, or what it returns. The listing of 'local health, configured models/checks, editor capabilities' hints at read-only diagnostics but does not assert it.

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?

It is short, but it is not a sentence and not front-loaded with an action verb, so brevity comes at the cost of comprehensibility. The reader must parse a comma-separated topic list to reconstruct the tool's behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey what a 'status' response contains and how to interpret it; instead it only names categories. For a zero-param diagnostic tool the missing return-value framing leaves the agent unable to know what it will get back.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 string 'Local health, configured models/checks, editor capabilities' is a noun-phrase list of topics rather than a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer that the tool returns a status/diagnostic report. It gestures at the right subject matter but never says what it does. No comparison to siblings flow_run/flow_check is offered.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to the sibling tools flow_run or flow_check. The agent must guess whether flow_status is a prerequisite to running/checking flows or an independent diagnostic.

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