flows_save

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that all in-memory flows are saved to a .mitm file, but it does not reveal critical behavioral traits such as whether the tool overwrites an existing file, requires directory existence, or has side effects (e.g., clearing in-memory flows). This lack of detail creates significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 sentence of 10 words with no unnecessary information. It is maximally concise and front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's primary function.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description provides adequate high-level purpose but lacks details on side effects, return format, and file handling. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete for confident invocation without additional context.

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. It adds only minimal semantics by implying that the 'path' parameter should point to a .mitm file. It fails to specify path format (absolute/relative), required directory permissions, or restrictions like needing a file path versus directory. More detail is needed for a single required parameter.

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 'Save all in-memory flows to a .mitm file' uses a specific verb ('save') and clearly identifies the resource ('all in-memory flows') and output format ('.mitm file'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like flows_load, flows_clear, and flows_list by specifying the save-to-file action.

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: if you want to persist flows to a file, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., flows_load for loading, flows_clear for clearing), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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