salesforce_list_flows

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

The description adds one behavioral detail beyond the annotations: routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data rather than the description. The description does not contradict the annotations, though it also does not elaborate on potential side effects.

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 compact and well-structured, with a short action statement, a routing note, and a clean Args section. There is no filler or unnecessary wording. The main weakness is not verbosity but missing substantive content about what the action does.

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 description relies on the tool name for the actual operation and never states what list_flows returns, what valid inputs look like, or when it should be preferred over sibling Salesforce tools. The output schema and annotations cover some structural and safety aspects, but the core purpose is left undefined. An agent would need external knowledge of the domain-agent action to use this tool confidently.

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 Args block gives both parameters plain-language meaning: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is real value beyond the bare schema, but it is generic dispatcher guidance and does not specify what keys, shapes, or values list_flows expects. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter detail.

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's main clause, 'Run the salesforce domain agent action `list_flows`', essentially restates the tool name without explaining what the action does or what an agent should expect from it. It adds routing context but no semantic definition that would distinguish it from other Salesforce list or query tools. At best it identifies the underlying action; it does not state the operation's actual purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like salesforce_soql_query, salesforce_passthrough, or the other salesforce list tools. The description only mentions how routing works (via the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope), not when this tool is the appropriate choice. Selection is left entirely to inference.

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