config_list_contact_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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds no context beyond the literal 'list' operation—no mention of pagination, result format, read-only nature, or dependencies. This is not sufficient for an agent to understand side effects or limitations.

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 extremely concise (three words), but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. While it is front-loaded, it omits essential context that could be conveyed in one or two additional sentences, making it an ineffective use of conciseness.

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?

The tool has a required parameter (instance_id), an output schema, and several sibling tools, yet the description provides no context about what is listed, how results are scoped, or what the output contains. It is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without extra inference.

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%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (instance_id, region, max_results). The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving parameter meaning entirely unspecified.

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 'List contact flows.' clearly indicates a list operation targeting contact flows. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like config_describe_contact_flow, config_create_contact_flow, or config_update_contact_flow_content, which also operate on contact flows.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an instance_id) or scenarios where listing contact flows is appropriate, nor does it exclude other cases.

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