List Flow Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return fields (version number, status, description, creation date), clarifies the meaning of 'deactivated' as 'Obsolete', and mentions the Tooling API as the underlying mechanism. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, all directly useful. Front-loaded with the main action and scope, then return details, then parameter guidance. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only listing tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers the API type, return fields, optional filtering, and parameter usage. No output schema exists, so the description responsibly explains the return content.

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 already well-described. The description adds slight semantic value by mapping 'deactivated' to the 'Obsolete' status and reinforcing the omit-to-list-all behavior for flowApiName, but it does not dramatically expand beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists all versions of a specific Flow, or all Flows in the org, via the Tooling API.' It clearly distinguishes this listing tool from sibling mutation tools like sf_activate_flow or sf_deactivate_flow, and from sf_get_flow_errors which targets errors, not versions.

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?

Clear usage context is provided: listing all versions of one flow or all flows in the org, with optional filtering to exclude deactivated versions. However, there is no explicit mention of when NOT to use this tool or direct comparison to alternative sibling tools, so it misses the top score by a small margin.

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