List feature flags

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying the filtering dimensions (search, tag, type, archived) and pagination via cursor, which are not fully covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations and discloses the operational details of the listing 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, tightly packed sentence that leads with the core purpose and immediately lists the key filters and pagination mechanism. There is no redundancy or filler; every word adds value. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 listing tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main filtering and pagination aspects. It does not describe the return format or default ordering, which might be important for an agent, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of filters, the description is reasonably complete. The missing return details are a minor gap.

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 low (29%), with only project and archived described in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the purpose of search (substring match), tag, type, and archived, and introduces cursor for pagination. However, it does not explicitly clarify the limit parameter's role, though pagination implies it. Overall, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 (list), the resource (feature flags), and the scope (in a project). It enumerates the available filters and mentions pagination, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_flag (single flag retrieval) and list_projects (different resource). The verb and resource are specific and 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?

The description explains how to use the tool (filters, pagination) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like get_flag for a single flag or other list tools. The sibling list implies a distinction, but the description leaves the selection logic to the agent's inference rather than providing explicit routing guidance.

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