list_flow_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the lookback window, default 14 days, and lists all returned fields (flow_name, file_name, pass_rate, etc.). It does not mention any destructive behavior or limitations, but as a read-only analytics tool, this is acceptable. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or prerequisites.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and uses three efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and main use case. It doesn't explain the structure of 'daily_data' in detail, but the listed fields provide sufficient context for an agent. Slightly incomplete for a complex aggregation tool, but adequate for most agents.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no new information about parameter semantics; it only repeats the lookback window concept. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides aggregated pass-rate and run-count analytics per Maestro flow file over a lookback window, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnose_run (single run) and suite_health (overall health). The verb 'list' is consistent with the resource 'flow analytics'.

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 explicitly says 'Use to identify flaky flows vs. genuinely broken flows,' providing a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for the agent to decide when to use this tool.

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