discover_dataflows

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions discover and optional filtering but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any rate limits. While a discovery tool is likely safe, the omission leaves ambiguity.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and action, with zero redundancy. Every word 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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, filtering behavior, and next step. However, it could explicitly state the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of dataflows with id, name, description') for full clarity.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that keywords match against id, Thai/English name, and description—information not in the schema, which only gives examples.

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?

Description clearly states it discovers TNSO dataflows with specific verb 'discover' and resource 'dataflows'. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by advising to 'start here' and then call get_constraints, showing unique positioning.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Start here to find a dataset') and next-step instruction ('then call get_constraints'), effectively differentiating from sibling tools without saying 'not for'.

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