list_flags

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the disjoint nature of active/archived, pagination support, and return fields (name, type, description, archived status, URL). Lacks depth on error behavior or authentication, but covers key behavioral traits for a list tool.

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?

Five sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by key behavioral notes, usage examples, and return fields. Every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains pagination, sort, and the active/archived split. It lists return fields. Minor gaps: no mention of error states or rate limits, but core completeness is strong for a read-only list operation.

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%—all parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond restating the active/archived nuance already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 feature flags in an Unleash project'—a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_flag or cleanup_flag by stating its role as a discovery/inventory tool. The name and task are unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'discover flags before creating new ones, audit flag inventory for cleanup...' It also explains the need to call twice for active and archived, and notes that they are disjoint—this serves as a when-not-to-use guide.

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