List flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: it defines the returned flags overridden_by, upstream_changed, and sync_conflicts, and prescribes an action for the last one ('tell the user'). It still does not mention pagination, ordering, or result size limits.

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 opening sentence front-loads purpose, then scope, then ID semantics, then flag semantics, then a prerequisite note — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is slightly telegraphic (fragments such as 'overridden_by marks...') and dense for a two-parameter read tool, but every clause carries information.

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 read-only listing tool with two optional parameters and an output schema already present, the description covers everything the agent needs: what is listed, how to scope it, how IDs are namespaced, which flags may appear, and when workspace matters. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 only 50% and the scope property has neither a description nor an enum in the schema; the description fully compensates by enumerating all four legal scope values, marking 'all' as the default, and explaining the ID namespacing (bare built-in IDs, user:<id>, repo:<id>). It also clarifies the conditional relevance of the workspace parameter beyond the schema's generic text.

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 (Markdown workflows) and immediately enumerates the three subtypes it can return (built-in, personal, this repository's). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_flow (single fetch), save_flow, or run_flow without opening any 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?

Gives concrete scope-selection guidance (all/builtin/user/repo, with the default) and the conditional prerequisite 'No workspace is needed except for repo flows', which is exactly the when-to-pass-what guidance an agent needs. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when another tool (e.g. get_flow) should be preferred for a single flow.

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