List Decision Flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the filter-by-name behavior, but that is also visible in the schema and does not reveal additional traits like pagination, ordering, or whether revisions are included.

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?

One sentence, ten words, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the optional filter. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 only two optional parameters, a documented schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials for invoking the tool. It loses a point because it does not clarify that this lists top-level flows rather than revisions, which a sibling tool (list_decision_flow_revisions) addresses.

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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions (limit and filter_name). The description's 'filtered by name substring' restates the filter_name schema, adding no new meaning beyond the structured data.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('SAS Intelligent Decisioning flows'), and an optional filter ('by name substring'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_decision_flow and list_decision_flow_revisions.

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 this is the tool for listing decision flows, but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as get_decision_flow for a single flow or list_decision_flow_revisions for revisions. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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