design_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 discloses non-obvious behavior: trees load from two sources, and the user folder takes precedence under identical conditions. This is meaningful for a read-only listing tool. It doesn't describe the returned shape, but an output schema exists to cover that. No destructive behavior applies here; disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two compact paragraphs with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return fields, data sources, and the precedence rule with bold emphasis. No filler or 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?

For a no-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is well-rounded: it states what is listed, the composition fields, the loading locations, and the overriding precedence rule. The only gap is explicit sibling routing (covered under usage_guidelines); nothing essential for invoking a pure discovery tool 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?

With zero parameters, there is nothing to document in the schema, so the baseline is 4 and no param compensation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool yields rather than inputs, listing the compositional fields (부재·단면·설계법·검증상태) that the result set contains.

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+resource ('쓸 수 있는 설계 결정트리 목록' — list of usable design decision trees) and enumerates what it returns (member·section·design method·verification status). The plural name 'design_flows' plus the sibling 'design_flow' (singular) hints at differentiation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 gives useful context about data sources and precedence (user folder `~/.kcsc-mcp/flows/*.yaml` overrides package examples) but offers no when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. With siblings like design_flow, design_map, and design_template, an agent gets no help deciding when to list flows versus fetch a concrete flow. The precedence info is behavioral, not usage-specific.

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