list_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'list' and states the return format as a markdown list. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like result ordering, pagination, or performance implications, though these are less critical for a simple list tool.

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 reasonably concise, but the first two sentences are redundant: 'List all asset flows in the system.' is repeated with 'This tool lists all asset flows in the system...' The Args/Returns structure is helpful, but the redundancy makes it less crisp than it could be.

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 simple read-only list tool with optional filters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks details like pagination or default behavior when no filters are provided, but these are not critical for this type of 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining both parameters as filters. It adds meaning to asset_id and component_id. The inclusion of 'ctx' in the Args section is not present in the schema, which could be slightly confusing, but it is clearly labeled as MCP context.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('asset flows'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assets or list_components. The optional filters are mentioned upfront, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage: to list asset flows, optionally filtered. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_flow for a single flow) or provide any exclusions. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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