fl_flows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals part of the return shape (variables and last timing) but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how many flows may be returned, ordering, or truncation limits — all relevant since recorded flows can accumulate.

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?

One short, front-loaded clause with no filler; the resource and the returned fields are stated immediately. Brevity here is close to under-specification, but nothing wasteful is included.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but workable — the agent knows what is listed and roughly what comes back. It omits any note on absence of side effects or result volume, which are the remaining gaps an agent would want covered.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 recorded flows") plus the payload each entry carries ("variables and last timing"). It is distinguishable from siblings like fl_flow or fl_run, though it never names them explicitly to draw the contrast.

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 statement of when this should be used instead of fl_flow (execute a flow), fl_record_start/stop, or fl_extract. The listing verb hints at a discovery role, but the agent must infer that on its own, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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