List Available Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond stating it retrieves a list. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not elaborate on any behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clear Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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's simplicity (listing tools), the description covers the essential purpose and output. It mentions the input parameter and return type. Annotations and output schema provide additional context. It does not elaborate on edge cases or error scenarios, but that is acceptable for a straightforward tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0% meaning schema properties lack descriptions, but the description includes a minimal 'Args: params: Input containing response_format.' This adds some meaning, though the schema itself already has descriptions for the input model and response_format. The description does not clarify the parameter's purpose beyond what is in the schema, and it omits details about the default value or enum options.

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 tool's function: 'List all tools available in Flowise.' The verb 'List' and resource 'tools' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools that list other entities (e.g., flows, assistants).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of context, preconditions, or when not to use it. The sibling names imply differentiation, but not explicitly.

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