list_flow_runs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a valuable disclosure that the tool uses Microsoft's unofficial api.flow.microsoft.com endpoint, which is unsupported and may change behavior. This is 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 structured with purpose, return type, parameters, caveat, and example. It is longer than minimal but every section adds value, with the caveat and example being useful.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return array format and fields. It also includes parameter details, an example, and a stability warning, making it complete for a read-only listing tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates parameter details (defaults, enums) already in the schema but does not add new meaning beyond providing a usage example.

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 'List recent runs of a flow, newest first,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_flow_run by mentioning that the returned `name` is the run id used by get_flow_run.

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 by showing an example and referencing get_flow_run, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not directly addressed.

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