list_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The List verb signals a non-destructive read operation and the scope (defined on the server) is clarified, but the description adds nothing about output shape, pagination, or how the detailed parameter changes behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The first states the action and the return fields; the second ties flows to libraries via flowId, which is genuinely useful context. Each sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool with one optional boolean and no output schema, the description covers the core usage and explains the library relationship. Minor gaps remain: the meaning of size is undefined, and the sibling get_flow is not mentioned as the alternative for fetching an individual flow's details, but an agent can still invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100 percent; the detailed boolean parameter is fully documented in the schema as returning the full flow graphs instead of the summary. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 states a specific verb (List), a resource (Tdarr flows defined on the server), and the returned fields (ID, name, description, size). It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 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?

The line about a library's flowId coming from list_libraries gives useful domain context, implying when list_flows becomes relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the natural alternative get_flow for retrieving a single flow is never mentioned.

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