getFeatureFlag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a feature flag but doesn't describe what happens if the ID doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), whether it's idempotent, authentication needs, rate limits, or the return format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, return format), usage context relative to siblings, and doesn't address what 'Get' entails beyond the basic action. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more descriptive context is needed to fully inform an agent.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (id, environmentId, featureVersion) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'id' is required (matching the schema's required field). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific feature flag by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'listFeatureFlags' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than a collection. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'archiveFeatureFlag' or 'updateFeatureFlag' beyond the verb difference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing flag ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or modifying flags), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'listFeatureFlags' for bulk retrieval. Usage is implied by the verb 'Get' but lacks explicit context.

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