list-stl-flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not re-establish read-only behavior. It does add the HTTP method and the required stl:read scope, but it does not describe pagination behavior, response format, or edge cases.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by endpoint and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 operation, readOnlyHint covers safety and the schema covers all optional parameters. The description gives endpoint and scope, but without an output schema a brief note that it returns a list of STL flows would make it fully self-contained.

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?

All three parameters already have schema descriptions, so the schema provides full parameter coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description starts with 'List Speed to Lead flows', a specific verb and resource. The endpoint and 'Scope: stl:read' further clarify the operation, and the plural 'flows' clearly distinguishes it from get-stl-flow and mutation siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get-stl-flow, create-stl-flow, update-stl-flow, or delete-stl-flow. 'Scope: stl:read' indicates permission requirements but not usage context or exclusions.

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