Get Flow Context Status

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it lists possible states (QUEUED, IN_PROGRESS, etc.) and describes the polling pattern. It doesn't detail error responses for invalid context IDs, but annotations already cover the read-only safety profile.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value: the initial query statement, the usage context, the state enumeration, and the typical workflow pattern. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple status-polling tool, the description is complete. It lists all possible states and suggests next steps (get_flow_outputs on COMPLETE, get_flow_error on ERROR). No output schema exists, but the description covers what the agent needs to know about the return value and workflow.

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%, so both parameters (instance and context_id) are already fully described in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Query the current status of a flow execution by its context ID.' It specifies the resource (flow execution status) and the key input (context ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_flow_outputs and get_flow_error.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this to poll background flow executions started with execute_flow, execute_subflow, or execute_action in background mode.' It also provides a typical pattern with alternatives: 'once COMPLETE, call get_flow_outputs. If ERROR, call get_flow_error.'

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