conduyt_list_call_flows

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that results include draft/published status and attached numbers, but says nothing about read-only nature, result volume/pagination, or account scoping for what is likely an unbounded collection.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The parenthetical gloss on 'call flows' and the enumeration of returned fields both earn their place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields. However, for an unfiltered list endpoint it omits result size, pagination, and whether phone numbers reflect wiring versus roster, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing to document. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are available, but does not warn that filtering must be done client-side.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List call flows') and disambiguates the jargon with '(IVR routing graphs)', plus names the fields surfaced (status, attached phone numbers). It is distinguishable from siblings like conduyt_get_call_flow by the 'list' verb, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 is only implied by the 'list' verb — the agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point before calling get/update/publish variants. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus conduyt_get_call_flow, conduyt_get_call_flow_wiring, or conduyt_list_call_flow_numbers.

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