flow_list_mention_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It transparently states the side effect of opening Flow's '@' reference popup and reading its options, which goes beyond a generic 'list' description. It does not detail safety permissions, but the read-only nature is inferred and no harmful behavior is hidden.

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 is both concise and information-dense. It includes the action, target, mechanism, and context without 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?

The description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and behavior for a listing tool. It lacks an explicit return format, but that is partially mitigated by the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the feature. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both 'campaign' and 'project_name' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('images and characters'), and the context ('current project' and 'via @name in an image/video prompt'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like flow_open_characters by specifying the popup-reading mechanism.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (when needing @name references for image/video prompts) and implies the popup interaction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5 but is clear enough for an agent.

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