get_flow_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the returned structure includes (status, trigger, actions/steps with type and message channel). It doesn't discuss edge behaviors like errors or pagination, but for a simple read-only detail tool the added context is sufficient.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and return contents, the second provides actionable routing to a sibling. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description gives the agent enough to select and call it correctly. It states what is returned, how to identify the resource, and where to get IDs if 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%, with 'account' and 'flow_id' already described meaningfully. The description's 'by ID' loosely maps to flow_id but doesn't add further parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Get a flow's structure by ID' and enumerates the contents (status, trigger, actions/steps). It also distinguishes itself from the list sibling by instructing 'Use list_flows for IDs,' making the scope precise.

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 gives explicit guidance for using the tool: retrieve a flow's structure once you have its ID. It also names the alternative for obtaining IDs ('Use list_flows for IDs'). However, it doesn't contrast with detail/report siblings like flow_report, leaving some usage differentiation implicit.

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