list_flows

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains scope behavior (namespace) and defaults for parameters. It does not disclose rate limits or side effects, but being a read-only list operation, transparency is adequate.

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 concise paragraphs: first states purpose, second details parameters. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy, efficient and front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, return value explanation is unnecessary. Covers use case, parameter semantics, and prerequisite hint. Complete for a straightforward listing tool.

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% yet the description adds full meaning for all three parameters: last_n (max number, default 50), offset (pagination skip, default 0), namespace (scope with hint to use get_config). This compensates entirely for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states 'List available Metaflow flows' and positions it for discovering flows before searching for runs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_runs.

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 advises using this tool to discover flows before searching for runs, and recommends using get_config to find default_namespace. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons to other sibling tools but provides clear context.

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