gflow_list_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states that the tool lists tools and their metadata, which implies a non-destructive read operation. It does not mention authentication or pagination, but for a simple listing operation with an output schema, these are unlikely to be critical gaps. The description is honest and sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the returned fields without any filler. Every word contributes value, and the core purpose is immediately clear.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (which covers return structure), the description provides all necessary context. It identifies the scope ('gflow prompt tools') and the fields returned, making it fully actionable for an agent. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The schema already documents the empty parameter set, and the description does not contradict or complicate it.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available gflow prompt tools') and enumerates the fields returned (name, title, description, category). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like gflow_instructions_list or gflow_character_list, which target different entities.

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 the tool is for discovering available prompt tools, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It relies on the tool name and sibling context for differentiation. There is no direct guidance such as 'Use this to see all tools; for instructions, use gflow_instructions_list.'

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