get_flow

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does add a useful behavioral detail—'including its full action sequence'—which indicates the return content. However, it does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects, even though reads are typically safe.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a short purpose statement and a single parameter definition. Every sentence adds value, and the Args formatting is clean and easy to parse.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the user what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this over related getters or how to handle not-found cases, leaving a minor gap in 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?

The description includes an Args section clarifying that flow_id is 'The UUID of the flow', which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. With only one parameter, this provides sufficient context, though it could be more detailed about the expected format.

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 'Get a flow by its ID, including its full action sequence' clearly states the specific action (get), the resource (flow), and the key differentiator (by ID, full action sequence). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_flows and get_activeflow.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_flows should be used to enumerate flows, or that get_activeflow is for active flows. The context is implied by the word 'get', but no explicit when/why is provided.

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