get_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation ('get') but does not specify what happens if the id is not found, the structure of the response, or whether states are nested or referenced. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's function. It is not bloated, but it is also terse. It earns its place without unnecessary words.

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?

This is a simple single-id retrieval tool, but the description is incomplete. There is no output schema and no info about error handling, response format, or how 'states' are presented. Given the sibling tools, explicitly mentioning that states are bundled and that this is for a single flow would enhance completeness, but it does not.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'id' is documented with 'Flow id (UUID)'. The description adds no extra meaning about how the id is used or formatted, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get one flow with its states' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (one flow) while adding that states are included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flows (which lists flows) and list_flow_states (which likely lists states separately), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_flows or list_flow_states. The description implies it is for retrieving a single flow with states, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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