get-flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as a read operation ('Retrieves'), implying no side effects. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if ID is invalid) or any other behavioral details beyond retrieval.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose and one line with parameter example. No redundant words. Front-loaded with key info.

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?

Given the tool is simple (single parameter, no output schema, straightforward read operation), the description is complete. It covers purpose and parameter format. No missing information needed for an AI 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 coverage is 100% with description 'Flow ID' for the id parameter. The tool description adds a concrete example ('e.g. '396c237c693dc''), which provides helpful format guidance beyond the schema. Slight improvement over baseline 3.

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 that the tool retrieves the configuration of a specific flow by its ID, using the verb 'retrieves' and specifying the resource and identifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-flows (which lists all flows).

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 implies usage for getting a specific flow by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-flows or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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