get_flow_principles

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add that the result mixes both principles and smells in one response, but says nothing about result shape, size, or what happens for an unknown flow.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient, if only because it is so short that it omits helpful detail.

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 should indicate what the response contains and how locale affects it; it does neither. For a two-parameter aggregate tool with an undocumented locale option, this leaves real gaps.

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 only 50%, and the uncovered parameter is locale (enum en/es with default en), which the description never mentions or explains. The flow_id enum is enumerated in the schema itself, so the description contributes no meaning beyond structured fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the key principles and common smells') and scopes it to 'a specific flow', which separates it from single-item siblings like get_principle and get_smell. It is reasonably clear, though the domain terms 'principles' and 'smells' are not elaborated.

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 choose this aggregated per-flow tool over get_principle, list_principles, get_smell, or list_smells. The agent must infer from the name alone that this bundles both categories for one flow.

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