List the folders flows are organised in

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the result is a tree, includes per-folder flow counts, reports flows outside all folders separately, and warns about non-unique folder names. It does not fully detail all return fields, but with no output schema it communicates the essential behavior well.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core output, the second clarifies an edge case, and the third gives actionable usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with good annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tree format, flow counts, handling of flows outside folders, and why the output matters (ID reliability), covering what the agent needs without an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic context about the folder hierarchy and counts but does not need to explain parameter details since none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('every flow folder'), adding concrete details like flow counts, tree structure, and reporting of flows outside folders. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like homey_flows_list and folder mutation tools.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this before moving anything' and explains why: folder names are not unique and only IDs are reliable. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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