Get Decision Flow Code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no additional safety disclosure is needed. The description adds no extra behavioral traits such as output shape or error conditions, but it also does not conflict with the 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 a single sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the action and object. Every word contributes meaning.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description fully identifies the resource. No essential context is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already carries a detailed explanation ('UUID (not its name — list_decision_flows returns both)'). The description adds no parameter-level information, matching the baseline when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 names a specific resource ('generated DS2 execution code for a decision flow'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_decision_flow, which would return the flow definition rather than its compiled code.

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 makes the intended use case clear: call this when the generated DS2 code is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource phrasing is specific enough that an agent is unlikely to confuse it with related decision-flow tools.

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