list_flow_owners

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool uses Microsoft's unofficial api.flow.microsoft.com endpoint, which is unsupported and may change behavior. This is critical risk information that adds significant value and goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, then summarizes return format, parameters, a critical caveat, and an example. Every sentence serves a clear informational role with no redundancy or 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 relatively simple listing tool, the description covers the required aspects comprehensively: purpose, return structure, parameters, usage example, and a notable behavioral risk. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return array description, and no gaps remain.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a practical example ('list_flow_owners { "flow": "<guid>" }') and reiterates the flow parameter's origin from list_flows, which clarifies usage beyond the schema's static text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the owners/permissions on a flow.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like add_flow_owner and remove_flow_owner by focusing on the read-only listing action.

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 communicates the clear context for use (listing owners/permissions on a flow) and provides a concrete example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its read-only nature and the presence of sibling tools imply appropriate usage, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' threshold.

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