list_flows

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the returned field set and account scope, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the fact that the optional status filter can narrow the 'all flows' result.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and includes the key output fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description plus schema and annotations are nearly sufficient. The only minor gaps are lack of pagination/limit notes and not mentioning how the optional status filter interacts with the phrase 'all flows.'

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%: both 'account' and 'status' have clear descriptions, and status has an enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries that burden adequately.

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?

States a specific action ('List') and resource ('all flows (automations)') in a Klaviyo account, and names the fields returned (name, status, trigger type, last updated). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling detail/report tools like get_flow_detail and flow_report.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as flow_report, flow_series_report, or get_flow_detail. An agent must infer usage from the name and description alone; there are no explicit contexts, exclusions, or alternative conditions.

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