list-flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by explaining state mappings, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if pagination exists, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a list operation with zero annotations, more transparency is needed.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and state mapping. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what is listed, which fields, and state interpretation. However, it lacks information on pagination or whether all flows are returned, and it does not reference related sibling tools like 'list-environments' to explain the environment context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a single parameter (environment) already well-documented. The description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema, such as format or how to obtain the ID. 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: 'List cloud flows in an environment' and specifies the fields returned (internal name, display name, state, trigger summary). It also explains state meanings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get-flow' (which retrieves a single flow) or 'list-flow-triggers', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the environment parameter defaults but provides no exclusions or context for when not to use it. This leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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