get-dataflow

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

Annotations are minimal (only a title that repeats the description), so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The parameter description hints at 'a successful run', adding some context, but overall, it's basic without rich behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter), high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the core action, though it could benefit from more usage context or behavioral details, but the structured data compensates well for a simple retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'dataflowId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the ID format or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a Coupler.io data flow by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-data' or 'list-dataflows', which could retrieve similar resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-dataflows' or 'get-data'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a successful run) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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