extract_flows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful detail about the mechanism (looking for transition links) and the output (directed frame-to-frame connections, deterministic traversal order), but does not explicitly state whether it's a read-only operation, what happens with invalid inputs, or any access requirements beyond the schema.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the action, method, and return value. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple extraction tool with three self-explanatory parameters, the description covers the core purpose and the nature of the return data. It could mention edge cases (e.g., no flows found) or explicit read-only behavior, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the parameter descriptions, so the description adds little beyond what's structured. The description's phrase 'page or frame' mirrors the schema's node_id description, providing no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's specific function: extracting prototype flows from a page or frame by finding transition links in the node tree. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on flows and navigation connections, not design tokens or states.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need flows from a specific page or top-level frame. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not conditions, but the usage scenario is well-defined enough to differentiate from sibling extraction tools.

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