list_flows

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by framing the action as inventory/list. It adds important context beyond annotations by revealing the unofficial, unsupported endpoint and warning that behavior may change. It also details the return structure and state values, though it does not cover pagination or error conditions.

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 well-organized in short, labeled segments (purpose, usage, returns, parameters, caveat, example). Every sentence adds distinct value—from the 'START HERE' directive to the unofficial endpoint warning—without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the responsibility of explaining return values, and it does so clearly (array of fields, GUID meaning, state values). It also covers usage context, parameter behavior, example call, and a stability caveat. This is complete for a simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value over the schema for parameters themselves: it repeats 'environment (optional)' and 'owner (optional — filter by creator userId/email)' almost exactly as the schema descriptions. It does clarify that 'name' in the output is the flow GUID, but that is output rather than parameter semantics.

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 specific verbs 'List / enumerate' and clearly identifies the resource ('all cloud flows in an environment') and the key outcome (returning flow GUIDs). It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is the only tool that produces flow GUIDs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs 'START HERE to discover flows' and explains that every per-flow tool needs a GUID that only this tool produces. It also names the sibling tools that depend on this output, providing strong when-to-use guidance and creating a clear workflow.

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