get_flows

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond a basic restatement of filtering and pagination. It does not mention response shape, result limits beyond schema defaults, or any other runtime behavior.

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 efficient sentence that leads with the primary action 'Get flows' and then conveys the key optional capabilities. 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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward read-only list tool with self-documenting parameters, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of return format or pagination behavior, and the nested filter object is left vague, so the description alone is not fully complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Get flows') and the resource (flows), and the plural form implies list retrieval rather than a single flow. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_flow tool, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'optional filtering and pagination' implies this tool is for listing multiple flows with constraints, which provides some usage context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_flow or when filtering alone would be insufficient.

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