Maestro cheat sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' clearly indicates a read-only, side-effect-free operation. The scope ('for writing/exporting flows') is disclosed. It does not mention output format or size, but for a simple reference tool this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource. No wasted words, and the information is immediately clear. Perfectly concise for a tool with no parameters.

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?

The tool is extremely simple: no parameters, no output schema, no complex behavior. The description fully explains what the tool does and for whom. Nothing essential is missing. It is complete and appropriately scoped.

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 has zero parameters, which gives a baseline of 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and adds no unnecessary detail. Since there are no params, the description fully satisfies this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('Maestro flow syntax guidance and best practices'). It distinctly focuses on informational guidance, differentiating it from sibling tools like export_flow or run_flow that perform actual operations on flows.

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 use when writing or exporting flows, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the tool is self-contained and no sibling overlaps directly. Could be improved with an explicit 'use when...' statement, but the current wording is sufficient.

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