list_flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain value by warning that mapping is not proof of execution, but says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset) or result shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the caveat earns its place by preventing misuse of the output as execution evidence.

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?

No output schema and no annotation-derived return description, so the agent is not told what a listed flow record contains or how pagination behaves. With four undocumented parameters and a non-obvious caveat about evidence semantics, the description leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0% for all four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Available exact revisions' hints that the revision parameter filters by exact commit, but project, limit, and offset are left entirely undocumented in both places.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('flows'), plus an additional scope ('available exact revisions'). An agent can distinguish it from get_flow/get_flow_evidence by name, though the description never explicitly names a sibling or spells out the list-vs-single distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List mapped flows', and the caveat 'Mapping alone is not execution evidence' gestures at when to prefer the evidence siblings, but it never names them or states an explicit condition for choosing this tool over get_flow or get_flow_evidence.

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