get_flows_formatted

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (FlowSummary with tabs/nodes/subflows grouped and counted) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations. As a get operation, it is implicitly read-only, but explicit confirmation would strengthen this.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus a 'Returns:' block. It is front-loaded with the purpose and the return details are clearly structured, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema that likely documents return values. The description provides sufficient detail for a basic getter, but it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like get_flows, leaving some ambiguity about when to select this tool over others.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific information; it correctly contains none.

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 the tool does 'Get flows with formatted summary and grouped data,' using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('flows') with a distinct focus on formatting/grouping. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_flows, which likely returns raw flows.

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 this tool is used when a formatted summary is desired, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_flows or get_flows_state. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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