treeflow_list_intents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states what is listed and that the result includes training phrases and slots, which is useful. It does not disclose response format, potential pagination, performance implications, or authentication requirements, but for a simple list operation the described behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then adds relevant detail about what is included. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 low-complexity list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the operation returns. It is missing only perfunctory guidance about usage context, but nothing essential is absent for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already covers the only parameter with a clear description ('ID del bot/árbol'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the 'bot' concept but does not add deeper semantics like format constraints or related terminology.

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 specific action ('Lista') and resource ('intenciones NLU de un bot'), and specifies included details (training phrases and associated parameters/slots). This distinguishes it well from siblings like treeflow_list_entities or treeflow_list_branches.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need all NLU intents of a bot, including training phrases and slots. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose, though the tool name and description make the primary purpose fairly unambiguous.

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