flows_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List captured flows with optional filtering and pagination', which implies a safe read operation, but it does not detail critical behaviors like default pagination limits, how filtering logic works (AND/OR), what happens on empty results, or rate limits.

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 very concise—a single sentence without fluff. It front-loads the core action. However, for a tool with six parameters, slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning defaults or filter logic) could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination defaults (offset, limit), filter combination logic, output structure (though an output schema exists), or any usage constraints. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description vaguely mentions 'optional filtering and pagination', but does not explain what the filtering parameters (host, method, status, search) represent or how they interact. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 tool lists captured flows, which is a specific verb+resource. It mentions optional filtering and pagination, adding value beyond the name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like flow_get or flows_clear, though the name 'flows_list' already hints at listing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as flow_get or flows_clear. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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