unfour.flow.list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one useful behavioral note — that results are abbreviated summaries and that full definitions require `get` — but says nothing about result size, ordering, pagination, or whether the list is workspace-scoped or global.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the action, the returned artifact, and the alternative tool. Zero waste and no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description adequately covers purpose plus the summary-vs-definition distinction. It remains incomplete on the two things an agent most needs for correct invocation: workspace scoping of the optional parameter and disambiguation from unfour.flow.list_runs.

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 is one optional parameter (workspaceId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The description does not explain whether omitting it lists flows across all workspaces or defaults to the current one — meaningful semantics that are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list saved Flow summaries) and contrasts with the sibling get tool in the same sentence. However, the term 'Flow summaries' is not disambiguated from the closely named sibling unfour.flow.list_runs, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool given the schema's summary objects carry run-like fields (status, startedAt, finishedAt).

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?

Gives one explicit routing rule: use `get` when you need the complete definition rather than a summary. This is clear when-to-use guidance for the list-vs-get choice, but it is silent on when to use this versus unfour.flow.list_runs, and states no exclusions or preconditions (e.g., workspace scoping) for the listing itself.

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