Get Flow Errors and Fault Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by naming the underlying objects (FlowRecordRelation, FlowInterview), explaining the returned error context, and providing operational parameter limits (max 168 hours). These details go beyond what annotations specify, though they don't mention pagination or potential large result sets.

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 concise and well-organized: a clear main purpose sentence, followed by a bulleted parameter list, and then return value details. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler. The structure makes it easy to quickly grasp key information.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: parameters are explained with defaults and limits, and the return fields are enumerated. The description fully compensates for the lack of an output schema, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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%, but the description introduces a critical inconsistency: it refers to 'lookbackHours' while the schema defines 'hoursBack'. An agent following the description might attempt to use a non-existent parameter. The description does add the max=168 constraint not present in the schema, but the naming mismatch outweighs this benefit.

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 tool's function: 'Retrieves Flow interview fault records from the FlowRecordRelation and FlowInterview objects.' It names specific source objects, mentions runtime errors, and lists the returned fields (fault message, record, flow name, start time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debug logs or event logs.

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 communicates when to use the tool: to see flows that have errored at runtime. It implies this is the go-to for Flow error diagnosis, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the sibling list includes debugging tools, more explicit guidance would help, but the context is clear enough.

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