List Flows

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds the account-wide scope and output fields, but does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or ordering behavior, which would add value beyond the annotation.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence clearly states the action, scope, and returned fields without any filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

With zero parameters and a read-only annotation, the description provides everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly: what it lists, at what scope, and what fields are returned. No output schema is needed because the description names the key output attributes.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description sensibly focuses on output rather than parameter details, since there is nothing for the agent to configure.

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 ('List') and resource ('automation flows in the ManyChat account') and specifies the returned fields (IDs, names, statuses). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like manychat_list_tags and manychat_list_custom_fields.

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 implies usage when a user needs automation flows and their basic metadata, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks direct routing guidance.

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