list_flows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions pagination, a useful behavioral trait, but does not disclose additional traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or return structure. For a simple list tool, this is modest but acceptable disclosure.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. 'List Wraft approval flows. Paginated.' is clear, front-loaded, and every word earns its 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?

For a simple list tool with well-documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It states the core action and pagination. The schema covers pagination mechanics. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the return payload could improve completeness, but it is not necessary for this level of complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already fully document each parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'List Wraft approval flows' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool as listing flows. It distinguishes from siblings like list_flow_states (which lists states) and get_flow (which fetches a single flow).

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: if you need to list approval flows, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no alternatives are mentioned, and there is no differentiation from sibling list tools beyond the resource name.

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