get_decision_flow_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but omits details like required permissions, side effects, or that the code is read-only. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but the description could mention that the code is immutable or version-specific.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 only one parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies 'generated DS2 execution code', which adds context. However, it could mention that the code is a string or that it corresponds to a specific revision of the decision flow.

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% and the single parameter 'decision_id' has an adequate description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('generated DS2 execution code for a decision flow'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_decision_flow' and 'get_decision_flow_revision' by specifying the code retrieval aspect.

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 'get_decision_flow' or 'execute_sas_code'. No context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios is given, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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