list_sf_flows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists active flows and flags Screen Flows as manual-only, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. For a listing tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, consisting of three short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and a special note. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it lists, why to use it, and a special behavioral note (Screen Flows flagged). It is nearly complete, though it could optionally mention the expected return format (e.g., list of flow names with types). However, for a simple listing tool, this is sufficient.

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 has no parameters (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description adds no parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers everything.

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 all active Salesforce flows with their types'), specifies the resource ('Salesforce flows'), and includes a scope ('active'). The note about Screen Flows further distinguishes the tool's output. It is specific and helps the agent understand exactly what this tool does.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this to show the user what flows are available before asking which to migrate.' This provides a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like analyze_flow for deeper analysis, which slightly limits guidance.

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