list_feature_flags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It explains the return format (dict for multiple, single value for exact match) but omits details like empty result behavior, idempotency, or error cases. Adequate for a simple read 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?

The description is concise with two sentences and a bullet list. The bullet list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, list operation), the description covers the essential behavior and return format. An output schema exists to detail the return structure, so completeness is satisfactory.

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?

The description's parameter explanation repeats the schema description exactly. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no new semantic value 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 it lists global feature flags, specifying the scope (global, apply to all projects) and supports glob pattern filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_project_flags.

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 indicates the tool is for global flags and supports glob filtering, implying use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly reference alternatives, though sibling list_project_flags exists.

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