cigchat_flow_ai_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required scope and the HTTP method (GET), but says nothing about return format, side effects, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The scope note is valuable but minimal.

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 short sentences that front-load the action and include the endpoint for reference. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 description combined with the schema covers the essentials: scope, endpoint, filters, and pagination. However, 'by flow' is unexplained, and with no output schema, the return format is not described. This leaves a moderate gap for a straightforward list 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters, including pagination and accepted provider values. The description does not enhance or conflict with the schema.

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 states 'Get list of ai agents by flow' with a clear verb and resource, and the endpoint is provided for reference. It distinguishes from the sibling 'cigchat_flow_agents' by specifying 'ai agents', but the phrase 'by flow' is ambiguous and doesn't explain how the flow is determined.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cigchat_flow_ai_agent_info' or 'cigchat_flow_agents'. The only context is the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is a permission prerequisite, not a use-case guideline. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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