cigchat_flow_bot_fields

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

Even without annotations, the description adds useful context: the HTTP method (GET) and required scope. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, potential response size, or any side effects (though 'list' implies read-only). The schema hints at pagination via page and limit params, giving moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences covering the purpose, endpoint, and auth requirement. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient but lacks explicit guidance on how 'by flow' relates to the parameters and what the response looks like. It does not mention whether name is an exact match or substring search, leaving room for ambiguity.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain name, page, and limit. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics or examples, so it earns the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get list'), the resource ('bot fields'), and the context ('by flow'), with the API endpoint for reference. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cigchat_flow_set_bot_fields or cigchat_flow_create_bot_field by indicating a read/list operation.

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 provides a prerequisite (Manage Flow scope) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cigchat_flow_user_fields or other list tools. It does not mention when not to use it or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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