list_flow_moves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and scope, but does not disclose output format, ordering, pagination, permission requirements, or what exactly constitutes 'movement history' (e.g., timestamps, actors, from/to states). The read-only nature is implied by 'list', but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It directly states the operation and scope.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description is too sparse given there are no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain the return value structure, potential errors, or behavior like whether the entire history is returned in one call or requires pagination. It is incomplete for a tool that lacks structural safety disclosures.

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% with the 'flow' parameter clearly described as 'Flow name or ID'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'ticket movement history within a flow'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ticket_moves (which likely covers all moves) and list_flow_tickets (which lists tickets, not their movement history).

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 scope 'within a flow' implies usage when you need movement history for a specific flow, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_ticket_moves or mention any alternatives/exclusions. The guidance is only implicit.

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