search_flow_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently presents the operation as a search and reveals the HTTP endpoint, implying a read-only style operation. However, it does not state whether results are paginated, require authentication, or what the response structure looks like, so the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 carry exactly the needed content: what the tool searches, the endpoint, and why an agent would use it. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It names the endpoint, describes the resource, and frames the use case. It could add explicit return-value details, but the statement that templates show how official flows wire nodes gives the agent enough understanding of what will come back.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the useful note that 'search' can be empty to list everything. The tool description adds context that the search targets ready-made templates, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the ready-made flow templates' and even gives the exact endpoint. It also clarifies what these templates are ('how the official flows wire their nodes together'), which distinguishes them from related sibling tools like search_flow_plugins that search plugins, not flow compositions.

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 a clear when-to-use trigger: 'Read one before designing a flow from scratch.' This tells the agent the intended context for the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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