List cloud flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does declare 'Read-only', which is the key safety signal. It also explains what the result reveals (what the agent's flow tools can call, what a solution import left switched off). It omits pagination/result-cap behavior and default resolution rules on the auth params, which are gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the guiding question, then the payload, then the read-only note, then the alternatives. Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 an 8-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description adequately covers purpose, result fields and routing, which compensates for the absent output schema. It falls short only on pagination/limit behavior and default-parameter resolution that an agent may need to call it correctly.

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 100% with all 8 parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantic value by implying the managed/unmanaged and state fields matter, but does not clarify top/search/includeManaged behavior beyond the schema text.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('list' every cloud flow) with scope stated ('every cloud flow in the environment') and the returned fields named (state, owner, last change). It explicitly distinguishes itself from cs_get_flow, cs_list_flow_runs and cs_explain_flow_run, so an agent can route without opening any sibling schema.

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?

Opens with the question it answers ('which flows are there?') and closes with explicit alternatives for contents, execution history, and failure cause. The exclusion ('This is the inventory only') plus named sibling tools leaves nothing to inference.

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