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 covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it enumerates the return contents (owner, is-signed-in-user-owner flag, each collaborator's email and role) and explicitly states the share token is never returned, which is a meaningful disclosure for a sharing-related tool.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential information (what is listed, what is returned), and zero filler. The security-relevant exclusion is placed last, after the positive return description.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values and does so concretely, including the role enum values and the share-token exclusion. It is only slightly short of complete in not mentioning call prerequisites or behavior for a flow with no collaborators or an invalid flow_id.

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?

There is a single required parameter (flow_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for the id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (collaborators on a Wavelength flow), which cleanly separates it from the add_collaborator, remove_collaborator, and remove_external_collaborators siblings. An agent can pick this tool without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the name and resource: call it when you need to see who currently has access to a flow. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_share_status, get_flow) and no prerequisites such as required permissions or ownership.

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