get_flow

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds useful output-content context (states, transitions, source dependencies), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or how run/revision parameters affect behavior.

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 states the tool's purpose and output without filler. Every word contributes to the description, and the structure is appropriately terse.

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 five-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It names the returned concepts but does not explain parameter behavior, usage context, or how to select between this and sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are five parameters, yet the description mentions none of them by name or meaning. The unqualified phrase 'of a flow' does not explain project, run, revision, or currentRevision, leaving critical parameter semantics undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('flow') and enumerates the returned content: mapped states, transitions, and source dependencies. It is clearly distinguishable from list_flows or compare_flow by content, though it does not explicitly name any sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_flows, get_flow_evidence, or compare_flow. The intended context is only implied by the phrase 'of a flow,' with no explicit when/when-not conditions or prerequisites.

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