passgage_list_approval_flows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the core action (list with filter/pagination), but does not mention return format, authentication requirements, or other side effects. For a read-only list operation, the transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 a single concise sentence that states the purpose and key capabilities. No wasted words, properly front-loaded, and easy to scan.

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 simple list tool, the description is minimally complete: it names the resource and the supporting features. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the response structure or any pagination metadata, which might leave an agent uncertain about the return shape.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description only generically references 'filtering and pagination' without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra semantic value.

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 clearly states the action: 'List approval_flows' with a specific resource. It also notes optional filtering and pagination, which distinguishes it from single-record retrieval (passgage_get_approval_flow) and from list tools for other resources. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination', giving a sense of when to use the tool (for multi-record listing), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_approval_flow for single records. Sibling tool names imply the distinction, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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