list_flows

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is read-only (though 'List' implies it), whether results are paginated, ordered, or capped, or whether auth/session state is required — all relevant since sibling flow_browser_* tools depend on a login session. Only the scope/negative-differentiation fact is added.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and the second sentence exists solely to prevent a concrete misidentification. Nothing is wasted.

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 this covers purpose and scope disambiguation, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent still has no idea what fields records carry, how many come back, or whether results are paginated. A sentence on return shape or result size would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Notably, it also does not falsely imply any filtering inputs, which keeps expectations aligned with the empty schema.

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+resource ("List legacy bridge workflow records") and immediately distinguishes it from the Google Flow/Veo siblings, which is the main confusion risk given names like list_videos and list_video_jobs. It stops short of saying what a 'legacy bridge workflow record' contains, but the intent is clear.

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 negative guidance ("not Google Flow/Veo projects") implicitly steers the agent away from using this for Flow/Veo listing, which is useful. But there is no positive when-to-use statement and no named alternative for the Flow/Veo case, leaving the agent to infer that list_videos or list_video_jobs is the right sibling.

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