get_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds little beyond them. It repeats the filtering concept found in the schema and provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, ordering, or the meaning of 'operations.'

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains no filler or redundant wording. It is concise and readable, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks explanation of what an operation is, whether all operations are returned by default, and what the response looks like, which leaves clear gaps.

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 parameters (limit and flow_id) having descriptions. The description only echoes the filter concept without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not improve on the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('flow operations') with an optional filter. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_flows and get_flow by naming operations specifically, though it does not explicitly differentiate from all alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_flows, trigger_flow, or bulk_operations. The only usage hint is 'optional filtering by flow,' which does not explain when filtering should be applied or how this compares to other tools.

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