get_decision_flow_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context that the returned artifact is generated DS2 execution code, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the code depends on a published revision or whether retrieval can fail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It states the exact action and resource economically, making it easy to scan.

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, read-only, idempotent retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema available, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly names the resource being retrieved and is consistent with annotations, though a note about how the generated code relates to decision flow revisions could add further value.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including the clarification that decision_id is a UUID and not a name. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy parameter coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('generated DS2 execution code for a decision flow'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_decision_flow and get_decision_flow_revision by focusing specifically on the generated execution code, not metadata or revision details.

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 the tool is used when the generated DS2 execution code for a decision flow is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related tools such as get_decision_flow or get_decision_flow_revision. No exclusions or alternative usage guidance is provided.

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