Сценарии

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns a list of flows with their operational status and node counts, plus the default fallback to all bots in the case when 'bot' is omitted. No contradictions; annotations and description align 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?

Two concise sentences. The first states what the tool returns, the second clarifies the default scoping. Every word adds value, and it's immediately scannable.

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 simple list tool with rich annotations and full schema descriptions, the description covers the essential usage context. It communicates return highlights and default behavior without over-explaining, which is complete for this tool's simplicity.

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%, and the schema already explains the 'bot' parameter's default behavior ('Без него — все боты дела'). The tool description reiterates this but adds no meaningful new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 flows with specific contextual details ('какой из них в работе' for status, 'сколько в них узлов' for node counts). It also explains the default scoping behavior without the 'bot' parameter, effectively distinguishing it from single-flow retrieval tools like flows_get. This is a specific verb+resource+scope definition.

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 it by explaining the behavior with and without the 'bot' parameter. It implicitly differentiates from flows_get/flows_export and others, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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