cigchat_flow_template_installs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and implies a read-only operation via 'Get list', but it fails to mention response format, pagination behavior, or error cases, which are useful for a list endpoint.

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 with the endpoint and permission front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or fluff content.

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 operation with optional pagination parameters fully described in the schema and an auth requirement noted, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by clarifying the distinction from the sibling template_installs tool or describing the response, but the core usage is covered.

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?

Both parameters (page and limit) are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions, so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of template installs in this flow'), plus the HTTP endpoint. It clearly identifies the tool's scope ('in this flow') but does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named sibling tool cigchat_template_installs.

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?

It clearly states the required token scope ('Manage Flow'), which gives a concrete access prerequisite. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related cigchat_template_installs or other list tools.

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