list_flows

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

With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'List Flows' and does not mention pagination, required permissions, filtering, or any side effects. The agent is left uninformed about how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise and contains no filler words, which is a positive. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, providing only a minimal label rather than a helpful tool 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is wildly incomplete. It fails to explain return values, scope, or any contextual details needed for correct invocation.

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 includes a single optional parameter 'wabaAccountId' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the parameter's purpose and format are entirely unexplained, and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 'List Flows' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (flows), which is specific enough to understand the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_flows_flow_id, though the distinction is implied by the naming convention.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or appropriate contexts. It is a single phrase with no additional usage information, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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