list_package_iflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'list' implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, limitations, or the format of the output. Annotations are absent, so a score of 3 is appropriate as the basic nature is clear but lacks depth.

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 concise with a clear main sentence and a structured 'Args' section. No superfluous information, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 straightforward with two parameters (one required) and an output schema exists. The description is adequate for a list operation, though it could mention the return type (list of iFlows) for completeness, but not essential.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: 'package_id' as the integration package ID and 'odata_query' as an optional OData query with an example. This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and titles.

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 'List all integration flows (iFlows) within a specific package' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_integration_packages and list_iflow_resources.

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 implies use when a specific package_id is known, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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