get_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns a list of flows and supports filtering with operators. It does not disclose any risks, side effects, or required permissions. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the filter operators, but lacks explicit read-only assurance or mention of pagination behavior (though limit is documented).

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 relatively concise, using bullet points for operators and examples for clarity. It front-loads the purpose and then provides actionable details. No extraneous sentences; each part contributes to understanding.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core functionality, filter operators, and parameter defaults (via schema). It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool, though it could mention workspace_id context more explicitly.

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 input schema has 67% description coverage (two of three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds significant meaning by explaining the filter operators (any_, like_, all_) and providing concrete examples for each parameter. This helps an agent construct valid filter objects beyond what the schema's terse description ('JSON filter object') provides.

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 'Get flows with optional filters' and 'Returns a list of flows registered in the workspace.' This provides a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from siblings like get_flow_runs and get_deployments by focusing on flows themselves, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like get_automations.

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 provides a list of filter operators and examples, giving implicit guidance on how to use filters (e.g., any_, like_, all_). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_flow_runs or get_deployments, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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