list_iflow_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists resources, but omits details about pagination, authorization needs, error handling, or the impact of the version and odata_query parameters. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, so not a perfect score.

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?

Given 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not described, the description is insufficient. It does not address version filtering, odata usage, or what the response contains, leaving the agent underspecified.

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?

Three parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose or usage of 'version' (defaults to 'active' but not clarified) or 'odata_query' (allows filtering but not specified). Only the iflow_id is intuitively understood.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all resources (Groovy scripts, XSLT, XSD, etc.) of an integration flow'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_iflow_resource (single resource) and update_iflow_resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use list vs get_iflow_resource, or any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The description is purely functional.

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