list_flow_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is a plain array (not paginated), that states are returned in order, and that approver requirements may cause transitions to be rejected. This goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover error handling or authentication.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the approver note adds valuable context. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape (array, not paginated), ordering, and a relevant downstream limitation. It does not enumerate the state object's fields, but the mention of a state's id implies the necessary structure. Overall sufficiently complete.

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 100% because flow_id is documented as 'Flow id (UUID)'. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('List'), resource ('states of a flow'), and scoping ('in order'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_flows and transition_document_state by focusing on flow states and hinting at a downstream use for the state IDs.

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 clear context by noting the return format (plain array, not paginated) and directing the agent to use a state's id with transition_document_state. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but this guidance is enough for appropriate selection.

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