List Integration Flows in a Package

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

No annotations are provided. The description states 'list', implying read-only behavior with no destructive side effects. This is adequate for a listing tool, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, permissions) are given. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but does not go beyond the implied action.

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 sentence, very concise with no filler. However, it may be too brief given the need to explain parameters and usage. Slightly more detail without verbosity would improve it.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not hint at the return format or content (e.g., list of flow IDs, names, etc.). For a listing tool, this is a significant omission. The description is complete only in stating the basic function.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the meaning of 'packageId'. The only parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The tool name suggests it lists flows within a package, but the description does not clarify the role of packageId.

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' and the resource 'integration flow design-time artifacts in a package'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_integration_packages (lists packages) and get_integration_flow (gets a single flow). However, 'design-time artifacts' is slightly vague but domain-appropriate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. Given many sibling tools for integration flow operations, such guidance would be helpful.

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