List in-progress (discovered) config flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the flows are unfinished, they result from network discovery, and each row carries the matched discovery context (host/IP, device id, model, serial) — valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that stay on task, with the core purpose stated first. The middle sentence is somewhat long but earns its place by describing return content that no output schema provides.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing what each row contains. Combined with fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, it is nearly complete for a simple list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the instance_id refusal behavior and the include_user_flows default. The description only restates the optional domain filter, adding no meaning 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 (List) and resource (config flows), then sharpens the scope to flows 'started but not finished' — i.e. network-discovered integrations. It effectively distinguishes this from siblings such as ha_list_config_entries (finished, configured entries) and ha_config_flow (individual flow management).

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 framing 'what has HA found that is not set up yet?' gives clear usage context and the default-vs-user-started distinction. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use instead when the agent wants already-set-up integrations, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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