list_flow_apis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and pagination, but does not describe default pagination behavior, result limits, response format, or any side effects. This is minimal for a list tool with options.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to use pagination in practice (e.g., default page size, relationship between top and skip), nor does it indicate the response structure. This leaves significant context gaps for the agent.

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% with descriptive parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optional filtering and pagination' loosely summarizes the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what is already documented.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Arc flow APIs'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_flow_api (single item retrieval) and create_flow_api (creation). The mention of optional filtering and pagination adds useful scope.

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 for browsing or querying flow APIs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It avoids explaining that get_flow_api should be used for a single flow API or that create_flow_api is for creation, so guidance is only implied.

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