list_flows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List flows' and gives no detail about whether inactive flows are included, whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, or whether this is a read-only operation. The minimal wording leaves the agent to infer behavior from the name alone.

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 short, single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and the environmental scope. It is concise but could be slightly clearer by specifying 'current' vs 'given' as alternatives.

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 low complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description is too thin to be complete. It does not mention pagination, sort order, whether all flow states are returned, or how the 'current' environment is determined. Without annotations or an output schema, more context is needed for reliable selection and invocation.

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 description adds some meaning to the environmentId parameter by noting it selects the 'current/given' environment, implying optionality and a default context. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, it does not fully clarify the format, allowed values, or behavior when the parameter is omitted.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('flows'), and adds an environmental scope ('current/given environment'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_connectors and list_environments, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_flow.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and the optional environmentId parameter: call this to list flows, optionally scoped to an environment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_flow, or whether environmentId is needed when there is a current environment.

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