list_flows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the return values and its role as a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or potential edge cases like no flows returned. This is adequate for a simple list but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 three concise sentences with no filler: the action, the return fields, and the usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what is returned (id, name, description) and provides the key usage context (discover flowId first), covering all necessary aspects.

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 tool has zero parameters (empty input schema), so there are no parameter details to clarify. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description correctly does not attempt to fabricate parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'identity-verification flows' scoped to 'this IDnow account'. It specifies the return fields (id, name, description) and distinguishes it from session-related siblings by framing it as the discovery step for flowId.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first to discover a flowId before creating or listing sessions', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It references the sibling session tools implicitly but does not name them explicitly or state when not to use it, so it lacks full alternatives specification.

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