get-stl-flow

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the specific HTTP GET method and required stl:read scope without contradicting the annotations. It does not mention error responses or return shape, but for a simple read-only fetch the disclosed endpoint and scope are meaningful behavioral context.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the endpoint and scope. There is no filler or redundancy; every element earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only GET operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it gives the endpoint, scope, and resource. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the expected response shape or not-found behavior, but the simple fetch semantics make this a marginal omission.

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 100%: the id parameter is fully documented with type, bounds, and required status. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the full semantic burden.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('Speed to Lead flow'), and the exact GET endpoint with an {id} parameter. This clearly distinguishes it from list-stl-flows, update-stl-flow, and delete-stl-flow, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 this tool retrieves a single known flow by id, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list-stl-flows or when to use alternatives like update-stl-flow/delete-stl-flow. The endpoint and scope provide context, but no direct usage guidance is given.

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