Get Flow Context Status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It lists possible states (QUEUED, IN_PROGRESS, etc.) and the typical polling pattern. However, it does not mention rate limits, timeouts, or whether the tool is read-only (implied by query). Still, it gives sufficient behavioral context for reliable use.

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 very concise: two clear sentences covering purpose and usage pattern, plus a list of states and typical pattern. No filler or redundant information. 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should cover return format. It lists possible states and implies the output includes a status field. It also references related tools (get_flow_outputs, get_flow_error) for next steps. However, it does not explicitly describe the output object structure.

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 input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds marginal value by linking context_id to the return of execute calls, but does not elaborate on the instance parameter beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it queries the status of a flow execution by context ID. It specifies the verb 'Query', the resource 'flow execution status', and the key parameter 'context ID'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on polling, not executing flows.

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 this tool: to poll background flow executions started with execute_flow, execute_subflow, or execute_action in background mode. It provides the typical pattern: execute -> poll -> get outputs on COMPLETE or get error on ERROR. No alternatives are needed as this is a specific polling tool.

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