List Flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the result ordering, the fact that results are scoped to the authenticated user, and the fields returned (IDs, names, stages, modification times). It leaves the sort direction and pagination semantics unstated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is listed and how it is ordered, what is returned, and how to filter. The purpose is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 usefully summarises the returned fields, and for a three-parameter read-only list tool that is close to sufficient. Only the ordering direction and the limit/offset interaction are left implicit, which is a minor gap since the schema documents the pagination parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in structured form; the description only restates that `pattern` filters by name, adding no syntax or matching rules beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List Appmixer flows') plus a scope ('of the authenticated user') and an ordering rule ('sorted by last modification'), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with retrieval siblings like get_flow, but the enumerate-vs-fetch distinction is implied by 'List'.

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?

It gives one concrete usage cue ('Use `pattern` to filter by name') but no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternative such as dropping list_flows in favour of get_flow when a single flow ID is known. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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