flow-read-prerequisite

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

With no annotations, the description correctly carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation does not execute the flow (read-only), returns a prerequisite description, and fails if the flow file does not exist. However, it does not detail the return format beyond 'description' or mention any auth/permission requirements, which might be relevant for a tool reading from the filesystem.

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 four sentences but each provides necessary context: the core function, return value, usage guidance, and failure condition. It is front-loaded with the verb+resource and does not include filler. Slightly longer than the minimal ideal but still efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains what is returned (a prerequisite description) and a key error condition. It also addresses the parameter relationship with flow-execute. However, it leaves some ambiguity around the 'boundary-managed flow_path' concept and does not elaborate on the structure of the returned prerequisite description. For a simple read tool with detailed schemas, this is close to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explicitly connecting name/flow_path to the flow-execute invocation: 'pass the same flow source (name or flow_path) you will pass to flow-execute.' It also clarifies that flow_path is 'boundary-managed,' hinting at the file-input boundary distinction. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Read the execution prerequisite of a flow without running it,' clearly specifying the verb (read) and resource (execution prerequisite of a flow). It distinguishes from sibling flow-execute by explicitly stating it does not run the flow, and explains the two valid sources (saved flow or flow_path).

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when you need to check what app/simulator state is required before executing a flow.' It also gives a concrete recommendation to pass the same flow source as flow-execute to ensure the prerequisite read matches the flow that will run. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'without running it' contrast with flow-execute provides implicit exclusion.

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