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, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the substring filter behavior, which is a useful extra. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination behavior, or access-scoping constraints, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action, resource, and optional modifier. Every word contributes value; there is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the 100% parameter schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and effective annotations, the description is sufficient. It captures the core purpose and optional filtering without needing to explain return values or parameter details that are already structured.

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% with both parameters (limit and filter_name) already documented with clear descriptions. The description's mention of 'filtered by name substring' merely reaffirms the schema's filter_name semantics without adding new information or clarifying format, case sensitivity, or edge cases.

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 clearly states the specific resource ('SAS Intelligent Decisioning flows') and the action ('List'), plus an optional filtering capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs and list_business_rulesets, making the purpose immediately 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to enumerate decision flows, optionally filtered by name), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of related tools like get_decision_flow or list_decision_flow_revisions for more targeted needs, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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