get_flow

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that flow operations can be optionally included, which is useful response-shape context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format or error behavior. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and target immediately and remains appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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 low-complexity read tool with complete schema documentation and readOnly annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from related siblings like get_flows and get_operations, and 'operations' is not elaborated beyond the schema field description.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: 'Flow ID' and 'Include flow operations in response'. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'with optional operations', so the schema carries the semantic weight and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a specific flow'), and a selection criterion ('by ID'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It is distinguishable from list-oriented siblings like get_flows, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use case is implied: retrieve a single flow when an ID is known, optionally including operations. However, the description does not explicitly explain when to use this tool instead of get_flows or get_operations, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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