get_flow

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the response bundles pre-flight and post-flight checklists, which is genuinely useful beyond the annotation, but says nothing about localization behavior, whether the checklists are static or generated, or error handling for unknown IDs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the usage hint. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence is thin enough that it barely earns its own sentence rather than being folded into the first.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying return content and does so only at a high level ('pre-flight and post-flight checklists'). For a two-parameter read tool with one annotation this is close to sufficient, but an agent still cannot tell what a 'flow' object or a checklist entry looks like.

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 50%: the id parameter is documented exhaustively with twelve enumerated values, while locale has only an enum and default with no prose. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all and does not explain what locale actually localizes, though the self-explanatory enum and default limit the damage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a user flow') and adds what the payload contains ('pre-flight and post-flight checklists'), which distinguishes it from list_flows by the singular retrieval. It does not explicitly name the neighboring get_flow_principles or list_flows, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Use before designing or shipping a flow' gives a lifecycle moment for invocation, which is more than nothing. However, it never states when NOT to use it, nor names alternatives such as list_flows (for enumeration) or get_flow_principles (for the underlying rules), leaving routing between siblings to inference.

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