Get integration flows

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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds meaningful behavior: packageId is mandatory, direct listing is unsupported, and omitting packageId may return 501. This clarifies failure modes beyond what the schema or annotations state.

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 compact and front-loads the primary purpose. The second sentence adds the crucial packageId constraint and failure warning. It is slightly repetitive of the title but still efficient.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. It covers packageId but leaves OData query parameters, return format, pagination, and error handling mostly unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It meaningfully explains packageId, but top, skip, filter, select, and orderby remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clear verb and resource: get integration flows from a package. It also adds a scoping constraint by stating packageId is required. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_integration_flows, though the packageId requirement implies a different access pattern.

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 clear context: packageId is required and direct listing all iFlows is unsupported. It also warns about a possible 501 when listing directly. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like search_integration_flows for cross-package searching.

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