get_flow

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context by stating the return value includes 'nodes, configs, and subflows.' However, it lacks details about error behavior (e.g., flow not found) or side effects, and it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior.

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 well-structured and concise: a one-sentence purpose, then Args and Returns sections. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so detailed return values are already covered. The description provides a high-level return summary and parameter description, making the tool adequately documented. Missing usage guidance and error behavior, but for a simple one-parameter getter, this is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description provides 'flow_id: Flow ID,' which merely restates the parameter name and adds no semantic value about format, where to find it, or constraints. This is insufficient compensation for a schema without descriptions.

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 states 'Get a single flow by ID' with a specific verb (get), resource (flow), and scope (single by ID). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_flows (plural) and get_flows_formatted.

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 description implies usage when a specific flow ID is known, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_flows. There is no direct guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools.

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