Get Flow Resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-only list operation and gives examples of returned resource types, but does not explain the return structure, potential errors, pagination, authentication needs, or how version affects the result. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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?

A single sentence that fronts the main verb and object, with a parenthetical list of examples. It is compact and readable, but the structure is flat with no separators or additional context, so it earns a high but not top score.

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 there is no output schema and only two sparse parameters, the description should compensate by explaining the returned data shape, the meaning of artifactId and version, and how this tool relates to similar ones. It only provides the basic 'list resources' idea, leaving too much unsaid for reliable invocation.

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 schema has two parameters (artifactId, version) with zero description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning to either parameter, leaving artifactId and version undefined. The agent must guess what 'active' means as a default and what an artifactId refers to, making parameter usage highly ambiguous.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource type (resources inside an integration flow) plus enumerates concrete examples (scripts, XSDs, WSDLs, mappings). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_integration_flow or get_flow_configurations, which target different aspects.

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 implies usage when you need to inspect the resources within a flow, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools. The context is clear enough for a basic guess but lacks explicit guidance.

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