get_flow

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: it uses Microsoft's unofficial endpoint that is labeled unsupported and may change. It also enumerates the full set of returned fields, giving the agent a clear expectation of the operation's safety and output. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact: three sentences covering purpose, parameters, and a usage caveat, followed by an example. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the most important content is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing exactly what is returned (state, timestamps, owner, definition JSON, connectionReferences, parsed trigger/action names). It also covers the key caveat about the unsupported endpoint and includes a usage example. For a read-only tool with good annotations, this is fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates that flow is a required GUID and environment is optional, but this adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not provide additional format constraints or cross-parameter relationships, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('full definition of one flow'), then enumerates exactly what is included: state, timestamps, owner, workflow definition JSON, connectionReferences, and parsed trigger/action names. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_flows (which lists flows) and get_flow_run (which targets run details).

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 explains the required parameter (flow GUID from list_flows) and optional environment, and provides an example invocation. It implies usage after listing flows, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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