get_decision_flow_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieve') but does not elaborate on whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns a large payload, or how errors are handled. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name and does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or performance characteristics.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple (one parameter) and the schema is well-documented. The presence of an output schema covers return values. The description is adequate for understanding the core function, but it lacks usage guidance or behavioral context, which would make it fully complete for an agent.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter, and it adds useful context by clarifying that 'decision_id' expects a UUID and not a name (and that list_decision_flows returns both). The description itself adds no parameter details, but since the schema is complete, the baseline of 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 ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('generated DS2 execution code for a decision flow'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_decision_flow (which likely returns the flow definition) and list_decision_flows. The purpose is unambiguous.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternate tools. The sibling context implies that this is for retrieving generated code, but the description itself does not explain when an agent should choose this over get_decision_flow or get_decision_flow_revision.

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