list-dataflows

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable behavior. The description adds value by specifying that IDs are in 'uuid format' and can be retrieved by name, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, idempotent, with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and key usage, though it could benefit from more explicit differentiation from sibling tools. The output schema handles return values, so no need to detail them here.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the input (none required). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on output semantics (ID retrieval by name). This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 my Coupler.io data flows') and resource ('data flows'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-dataflow' or 'get-schema' beyond mentioning the ID retrieval aspect.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use this to get the ID (uuid format) of a data flow by its name,' which suggests this tool is for ID lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get-dataflow' or 'get-schema,' leaving some ambiguity.

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