Get Flow Execution Details

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: it specifies the underlying ProcessFlow API endpoint, states that flow operations logging is required, and explains that an unavailable report will include a notice. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose statement, followed by usage guidance, endpoint context, an important prerequisite, and a typical workflow. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the types of information returned (per-action timing, inputs, outputs, metadata) and provides context about the endpoint and prerequisites. It does not detail error handling or the exact response structure beyond the notice, but it is complete enough for a diagnostic tool of this complexity.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'rich execution details for a flow context' including per-action timing, inputs, outputs, and high-level metadata. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_flow_context_status and get_flow_logs by emphasizing detailed per-action diagnostics and positioning itself as the primary diagnostic tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: after test_flow or execute_flow, for diagnosing failures, inspecting inputs/outputs, and iterating on flow definitions. It also includes a typical workflow and a prerequisite (flow operations logging must be enabled). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

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