unfour.flow.get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only a target-consumer note ('for use in Desktop Canvas or MCP') and says nothing about auth requirements, errors for missing flows, or workspace scoping behavior. It clears the lower bar set by annotations but adds little.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though that brevity is also what leaves the parameter and usage gaps unaddressed.

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?

A rich output schema exists (the full Flow definition structure), so return values need not be explained. But for a retrieval tool with two undocumented parameters and no guidance on when to prefer it over flow.list or flow.get_run, the description is only minimally 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 carries the burden of explaining the two parameters, yet it mentions neither flowId nor workspaceId. The schema supplies types and patterns but no meaning, and the description does nothing to clarify required vs optional or what workspaceId scoping implies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (saved Flow definition), which cleanly distinguishes it from unfour.flow.get_run. However, it does not name or contrast with sibling tools like flow.list or flow.get_run, leaving the agent to infer the distinction. Clear purpose but no sibling differentiation.

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 says what it does but never says when to use it versus alternatives such as unfour.flow.list (enumerate) or unfour.flow.get_run (inspect execution). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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