flow-read-prerequisite

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses failure case (file not existing) and that it returns a description. However, it does not detail the return format or specify read-only nature explicitly. Some transparency but lacking depth.

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?

Three concise sentences without redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by return description and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, usage context, failure case, and relationship to flow-execute. Missing output format detail (no output schema provided) and does not describe the prerequisite description structure. Slightly incomplete but adequate for a simple read tool.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by providing an example for 'name' parameter and clarifying that 'flow_file' is internal and derived, which goes beyond the schema. This additional context improves parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads the execution prerequisite of a saved flow without running it. It uses specific verbs ('read', 'returns') and resource ('prerequisite'), and distinguishes from sibling 'flow-execute' which executes the flow.

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?

Explicitly says to use when needing to check what state is required before calling flow-execute. Implies not to use when you want to run the flow. Could be improved by explicitly listing when-not-to-use, but current guidance is clear.

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