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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a useful conceptual definition of what an automation is (fires on events, executes immediate actions), but says nothing about return format, ordering, or pagination behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded with a labeled category and the key differentiator, followed by two dense sentences that carry scope, behavior, and exclusion with no filler. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is essentially sufficient. The only minor gap is that it does not hint at what a listed automation record contains, though with no output schema this is a small omission.

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 100%: the single optional parameter active_only has an enum, a description, and a documented default. The tool description does not discuss the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('fluxos de automação') and immediately qualifies the scope as event-triggered, one-shot flows. It explicitly excludes sequence cadences, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling list_sequences without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (reactive event-triggered automations) and when not to (prospecting cadences over days), naming the alternative list_sequences. Routing is completely unambiguous.

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