Get feature flag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that by saying 'Get'. It adds that the response includes variations and metadata, but does not describe return format, error behavior, or auth requirements; the annotation covers the read-only nature, so this partial disclosure is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the addressing detail is the only extra information. Every word 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?

For a read-only single-fetch tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and what it returns. It could specify the structure of variations/metadata, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (flag, project) are fully described in the schema. The description reinforces that 'flag' can be a key or id, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('feature flag'), and the scope ('one ... with variations and metadata'). It clearly distinguishes from list_flags by targeting a single flag and from create/update/delete by being a read operation.

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 this tool is for fetching a single flag by key or id, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_flags or other siblings. There is no explicit 'when to use this versus that' guidance, only an implied use case.

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