get_cflowd_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether results are time-bounded, paginated, aggregated, or how large the response may be, leaving the agent unable to predict the behavior of this read call.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a tool with zero annotations, but it wastes no words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape, temporal scope, and any aggregation or pagination behavior. Instead it supplies only a bare purpose, leaving significant gaps for a data-retrieval 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single device_id parameter is already documented as 'Device ID or system-ip'. The description adds only the loose phrase 'for a device' and no format, alternative identifier, or default details beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource (get cflowd flow information) scoped to a device. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_cflowd_statistics or get_app_log_flows, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which flow-related tool applies.

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 indication of when to use this versus get_cflowd_statistics, get_app_log_flows, or get_app_log_flow_count. The only implicit guidance is the device scoping, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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