search_flows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by explaining search scope values, regex behavior, backward scanning order, and the max_scan bound. It does not clarify how limit or include_assets affect results, which is a real but minor transparency gap.

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 efficiently structured in three short sections: core purpose, motivating use case, and technical parameter details. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or repetition.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation path thoroughly: what to search, why, how scope works, and scan limits. The main omissions are the semantics of limit and include_assets, and the lack of explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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. It adds real meaning for keyword, scope, regex, and max_scan, including a concrete regex example. However, it completely omits limit and include_assets, leaving two of six parameters semantically undefined.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across flows'. It also articulates the exact question the tool answers ('which request carried or returned this value?') and frames it as the entry point for reverse-engineering an API, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_flows or inspect_flow.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: it says this is the usual entry point for reverse-engineering an API and gives a concrete workflow (take a distinctive value visible in the page, search for it, find the endpoint). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is clear enough to route an agent.

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