list_flows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: newest-first ordering, default asset exclusion with the include_assets escape hatch, and exact matching semantics for url_contains and content_type. It stops short of mentioning pagination, rate limits, or auth, but the output schema likely covers return shape.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then organized by behavior and parameter guidance; most sentences earn their place. The 'single biggest signal-to-noise win' phrase is slightly promotional but harmless, and the paragraph breaks make it scannable.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the core list filtering behavior, asset exclusion, and matching details. It does not explicitly route to search_flows for more complex search scenarios, and a few parameters are undocumented, but the output schema and obvious parameter names fill most remaining gaps.

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?

The description adds non-obvious semantics for include_assets, since_seconds, marked_only, url_contains, and content_type beyond the bare schema, which has 0% description coverage. Host, limit, method, and status_code are left to their self-explanatory names/defaults, which is a minor gap but not a fatal one.

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?

Purpose is immediately stated as 'List recent flows, newest first' — a specific verb, resource, and ordering. It is clearly distinct from inspect_flow, get_content, or diff_flows, though it does not explicitly call out search_flows as the alternative for more complex queries.

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 concrete usage context: static assets are excluded by default unless include_assets=True, since_seconds is framed as isolating a user's UI click, and marked_only targets flows marked in the UI. It does not state when to prefer list_flows over search_flows, so no explicit exclusion or alternative is given.

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