list_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must itself disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and does not mention whether authentication is required, what the return format looks like, or that it has no side effects. This leaves a transparency gap.

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 clear sentence, 'List all custom tools available in a Google Flow project,' with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose adequately, but it does not mention any return value or connection prerequisites. Given the low complexity, this is nearly complete, though a bit more detail would be ideal.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter, project_id, with a clear description and optionality (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 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 explicitly states 'List all custom tools available in a Google Flow project,' which provides a specific verb (list), resource (custom tools), and scope (Google Flow project). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_custom_tool and update_custom_tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_media or list_projects. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this tool, or any exclusions, so the agent receives no usage context.

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