daykeeper_flows_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: access is authorization-checked, and the returned content is untrusted customer data, which is a meaningful prompt-injection/data-trust warning for an agent.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the trust warning kept compact. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, scoping and the untrusted-data caveat; only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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% with a single well-documented tenantId (UUID pattern plus access-check note), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates that the tenant filter is optional, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List authorized flow definitions') with the scope constraint, which is clear enough for an agent to know this is a collection read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling daykeeper_flows_get, which fetches a single flow, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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?

'Optionally restricted to a tenant' implies when the tenantId filter is relevant, giving implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion criteria, and no routing to the alternative daykeeper_flows_get for single-flow reads.

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