list_flows

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the query time-range syntax, but omits details on pagination (cursor), sorting, grouping, or any side effects (though likely read-only). This is insufficient for a tool with five parameters.

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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the only additional detail is a critical example of query syntax. Ideal length for a simple list tool.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of limit, cursor (pagination), sorting, grouping, and return behavior. This limits an agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the query parameter's time-range syntax with an example, adding value. However, it does not elaborate on the other four parameters (limit, cursor, sort_by, group_by), leaving gaps. The baseline is 3 due to zero coverage, and partial compensation yields a 3.

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?

Clearly states 'List network flows' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_alarms and list_boxes by focusing on flows. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'flow', preventing a score of 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools). No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for appropriate usage are provided.

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