flow_discover_ui

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

The description discloses a behavioral trait: it updates the internal selectors map as a side effect, which is useful context beyond the tool's primary action. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but does not mention authentication requirements, failure modes, or rate limits. This partial transparency warrants a mid-range score.

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 exactly two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the action and scope, while the second explains the side effect. This is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 the rich schema that explains pages and overrides, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and side effect, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's typical use. However, it lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., needing a connection via flow_connect) and error behavior, leaving some contextual gaps.

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% according to the context signals, meaning all four parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema, including the detailed page options and url override. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers parameters comprehensively.

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 navigates to a Google Flow page and discovers all interactive elements (buttons, inputs, links, headings), and updates the internal selectors map. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like flow_screenshot or flow_open_characters.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a setup step for automation ('Updates the internal selectors map for robust automation') but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. Sibling tools such as flow_connect and flow_screenshot exist, but no direct comparison is offered.

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