cigchat_flow_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and access requirements. It does disclose the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it only says 'Get list', implicitly indicating a read operation, and does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe pagination or return characteristics beyond what the schema hints.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by the endpoint and required scope. Every word adds value, and it is very concise without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with four optional parameters all documented in the schema. The description provides the endpoint and auth requirement, which is essential. However, it does not mention the absence of an output schema or clarify that results are paginated (though the page/limit params imply this). Given the simplicity and sibling confusion, the description is adequate but not rich enough for a higher score.

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?

Since the schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions (name, page, role, limit), the description does not need to re-explain them. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable because the schema provides sufficient meaning.

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 action and resource: 'Get list of agents' with the specific endpoint '/flow/agents'. This is more specific than the name alone, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'cigchat_flow_ai_agents', which likely lists AI agents. However, the endpoint and the context of 'agents' versus 'AI agents' provides enough clarity for most cases.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Requires the Manage Flow scope' is a prerequisite rather than usage context. It does not mention when to prefer this over other agent-related tools like flow_agent_summary or flow_agent_activity_log_data.

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