efm_list_flows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify the output fields and that it returns one summary per agent class, but it doesn't mention whether results are cached, paginated, or if any authorization is needed. The output schema exists and likely covers return structure, but the description adds only minimal behavioral context beyond that.

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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core output and immediately explaining its purpose. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear.

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 no-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and how to use it, though it leaves out minor details like error conditions or behavioral notes that might be useful but are not critical.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed, earning the baseline of 4.

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 returns one summary per agent class with specific fields, and explicitly explains that this maps a class to the flowId needed by sibling tools efm_get_flow and efm_validate_flow. This differentiates it from other listing tools like efm_list_agent_classes.

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 when to use the tool: it is the way to map an agent class to a flowId for subsequent calls to efm_get_flow or efm_validate_flow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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