list_flows

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the read-only nature is already declared; the description adds that the result contains summary fields rather than full flow definitions, which is a meaningful output-behavior disclosure. It does not detail pagination or default limits, but the schema's top parameter covers the limit behavior and no contradictions exist.

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?

A single sentence with a parenthetical carries the core purpose, scope, and an output caveat with no filler. The actionable verb is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 a simple, read-only list operation, the description plus schema covers the required environmentId and the optional max count, and the summary-fields caveat gives the agent enough to choose the tool and interpret the response at a high level. There is no output schema, and the description does not enumerate exactly which summary fields are returned or any paging behavior, so a small completeness gap remains.

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 the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which already explains environmentId as coming from list_environments and top as the max number of flows to return.

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'), a concrete resource ('cloud flows'), and a scope ('in an environment'), immediately distinguishing it from get_flow, which returns a single flow's full definition. The parenthetical clarifies that output is summary fields, not full definitions, removing ambiguity about its purpose.

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 clearly indicates this is the tool to use when you need an inventory/summary of cloud flows within a specific environment, and the 'not the full definition' caveat implies when not to use it. It does not explicitly name a sibling like get_flow as the alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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