get_flow_evidence

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the important constraint that it 'Does not run a browser,' clarifying it's a read-only retrieval from storage. It also hints at revision handling, adding useful context beyond annotations.

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 three concise sentences with no waste, and the key constraint (no browser) is front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is partially complete but leaves significant gaps about parameters and return values. It covers the core action and one parameter, but more detail is needed for full completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'revision' and 'multiple versions' without explaining other parameters like run, flow, project, or the distinction between revision and currentRevision. Most parameter semantics are left 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Read stored flow evidence, screenshots and failures'), making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_change_evidence or get_evidence_image, but the focus on 'flow' and 'stored' is distinctive.

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 by stating 'Does not run a browser' and 'Supply an exact revision when multiple versions exist.' However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_evidence_image or get_change_evidence, leaving the agent to infer.

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