yaaif_ops_flow_events

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 explicitly states READ-ONLY, which is a useful safety signal, but it does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, default limits, or how include_raw/summary_only affect results. The schema hints at some behavior, but the description itself is too thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The read-only warning is front-loaded, followed by the resource and the alias relationship. Every word 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and seven parameters, this description is too minimal. It does not explain what the returned flow events look like, how pagination works, what the default limits are, or how the summary/raw options behave. An agent would need to inspect the schema or guess.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for request_id by identifying it as the filter, but it does not explain limit, offset, include_raw, or summary_only. The schema covers max_chars, max_items, and summary_only, leaving several parameters without meaningful guidance from either source.

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 clearly identifies the resource (flow-events), the primary filter (request_id), and the read-only nature. The alias reference to yaaif_ops_telemetry resource=flow_events helps distinguish it from the generic telemetry tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the intent is still clear.

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 alias statement gives clear context: this is the flow-events-specific view of telemetry, implying it should be used when flow events for a request_id are needed. It references yaaif_ops_telemetry as the broader alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other event-related siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for basic routing.

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