flow_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly conveys a non-destructive read operation and lists the data points returned. It does not, however, mention whether a connection is required, what the output format is, or any failure/error behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource and packs meaningful detail into a comma-separated list. No words are wasted, and the structure makes the tool's scope immediately readable.

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 status-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context an agent needs to decide to invoke it. The main gap is not describing the response structure, but the enumerated data points mitigate that for a low-complexity read-only tool.

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 schema documents the single 'full' parameter with 100% coverage, including its type, default, and meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add detail about how 'full' changes the result, but it is not required since the schema already covers the parameter semantics.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Checks') and specific resource ('health and telemetry of Google Flow'), then enumerates exactly what is inspected: CDP connection state, active user account, session expiration, and credit balance. This distinguishes it sharply from the sibling generation, connection, and management tools without needing their schemas.

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 nature of a status/health tool implies when it should be used, e.g., before generating media or after connection issues. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving usage timing to inference.

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