gflow_instructions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is 'Credits-free', which is a behavioral trait not captured elsewhere, and mentions 'reads the live server brief', implying a live data read. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies it) or any side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations. This is a modest disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral hint (credits-free). It's front-loaded with the main action and resource. The only minor issue is that it could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient and not verbose.

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 read/list operation with only two parameters and an output schema (not described). The description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral aspect. However, given the lack of annotations and zero schema coverage, the description should have explained the parameters more thoroughly to be complete. The complexity is low, so this is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. The description mentions 'project' in the resource but doesn't explain what 'project' means or what 'profile' does. It also doesn't clarify that 'profile' defaults to 'default' or its purpose. This leaves the agent with minimal parameter understanding, which is inadequate given zero schema coverage.

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 identifies the specific resource ('Flow project's persistent Agent-Mode instruction cards') and the action ('List'), which is clear and distinct from other instruction-related sibling tools. It also hints at reading the live server brief, adding context. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, but the verb-resource combo is specific enough.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to view instruction cards) and mentions it's credits-free, which is a useful usage consideration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like gflow_instructions_add or gflow_instructions_apply. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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