Get Flow Error

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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description correctly aligns as a read operation. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the precondition (only for failed flows) and that the return is the error message for diagnosing flow definition issues. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately useful usage condition. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff.

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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage trigger, parameter reference, and return value. It integrates well with sibling tools by referencing get_flow_context_status, and no critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both instance and context_id fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond mentioning 'context ID' which mirrors the schema's required context_id field. Baseline 3 applies 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 the tool retrieves the error message from a failed flow execution by context ID, using specific verb 'retrieve' and naming the exact resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_flow_logs and get_flow_outputs by focusing specifically on the error message.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Call this after get_flow_context_status shows ERROR'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related diagnostic needs, so it falls short of full alternative/exclusion guidance.

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