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 explicitly declares 'Read-only' and 'inventory only', and describes the returned fields (state, owner, last change). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps for an 8-parameter 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the question it answers and the scope, then the read-only safety trait, then explicit routing to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values; it does so by listing state, owner, and last change. It also covers scope, read-only behavior, and sibling routing. Given the rich schema descriptions for all parameters, the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list every cloud flow in the environment') and specifies scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming cs_get_flow, cs_list_flow_runs, and cs_explain_flow_run with their respective purposes.

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?

Answers the question 'which flows are there?' and provides explicit routing: use cs_get_flow for one flow's contents, cs_list_flow_runs for execution history, and cs_explain_flow_run for failure causes. It also gives concrete use cases, such as seeing what the agent's flow tools can call and what a solution import left switched off.

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