Get Flow Error

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or limits. However, it correctly implies a read-only retrieval (consistent with 'get') and explains the return value's diagnostic purpose. The transparency is adequate but not enriched beyond the name.

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 two sentences and a short paragraph, all front-loaded with the purpose and usage. No redundant or unnecessary 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 retrieval tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose, when to call, and return value. It could include an example or note about empty returns, but overall it is sufficient.

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%, with both 'instance' and 'context_id' well described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only referencing the context ID from execution results. It does not justify raising the score above baseline.

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 error messages from failed flow executions using a context ID. It distinguishes itself by explicitly mentioning the parent tool get_flow_context_status and when to call it (after an ERROR status).

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 tells the agent to call this after get_flow_context_status shows ERROR, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if status is not ERROR) or mention alternative diagnostic tools like get_flow_logs.

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