cigchat_team_flows

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 (auth) and implies a read operation via 'GET', which is useful. However, it does not describe return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a complete behavioral picture.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding the endpoint and scope requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite a simple 4-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It fails to explain what 'workspace bots' are in this context, what the response looks like, or how pagination works. The agent is left without crucial return-value context, making this less complete than similar tools.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, neither enhancing nor harming comprehension.

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 'Get list of workspace bots' with the endpoint '[GET /team-flows]', giving a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar list tools like cigchat_team_bot_users or cigchat_flow_agents, so it's clear but not fully distinguished.

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 only guidance is the auth requirement ('Requires the Manage Team scope'), which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, so the agent gets minimal direction.

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