Get Decision Flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description's 'Fetch' wording is consistent with these annotations, but it adds little behavioral detail beyond them, such as what exactly the current state includes or whether a missing/invalid decision_id produces a specific error. This is adequate given the annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 one tight sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. The only slight gap is that it does not clarify the distinction from get_decision_flow_revision or get_decision_flow_code, but the sibling list and parameter hint partially compensate. Overall, nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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%, and the single parameter is already well documented in the schema: it requires a UUID, explicitly warns against using the name, and points to list_decision_flows for retrieval. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('current state of a SAS Intelligent Decisioning flow'), which immediately signals this is a read/detail operation rather than a create, update, delete, list, or code-generation tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_decision_flow_code and get_decision_flow_revision by the 'current state' phrasing, though it does not explicitly name those 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. The parameter description helps by clarifying that decision_id is the UUID (not the name) and points to list_decision_flows for obtaining both, which is useful contextual usage guidance. However, it does not explain how this tool differs from get_decision_flow_code, get_decision_flow_revision, or list_decision_flows in terms of selection.

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