get_flow_starting_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get ... of the current page' implies a safe, read-only, page-scoped operation with no parameters, which sets reasonable expectations, but it says nothing about the shape of the returned list or whether inherited/remote flows are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier appears exactly where it is needed.

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 zero-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but does not clarify what a 'flow starting point' record contains or how results relate to the page's prototype settings.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully documents the implicit scope — 'the current page' — which is the only contextual input an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus resource 'prototype flow starting points' scoped to 'the current page'. The verb alone distinguishes it from the write-side siblings set_flow_starting_point and remove_flow_starting_point, though the description never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only 'Get' framing, but there is no statement of when to reach for this versus set_flow_starting_point/remove_flow_starting_point or any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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