flow_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly disclose side effects, failure behavior, or whether it requires a connection. It lists what it checks but not what happens if components are missing, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and the components it covers. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. It could be improved by mentioning what the return value looks like or how the 'full' parameter affects output, but the schema already covers the parameter, and for a status check this is reasonably complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'full' parameter with its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 checks current connection status and enumerates the exact components (browser connected, Flow page loaded, account verified, job queue state). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like flow_account_check and flow_queue_status.

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 implies usage as a general status check, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of individual checks (e.g., flow_account_check or flow_queue_status). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is implied but not explicit.

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