list_project_flags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that flags are returned for the current project and describes the 'active' parameter behavior, but does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., read-only), or other important behaviors.

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 and structured, with a brief intro followed by parameter details. It front-loads the purpose and adds necessary details without verbosity.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameters. It mentions return types (dict for multiple, single for exact match), providing sufficient context for the tool's usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the glob pattern behavior for 'feature_name' and the resolved vs project-only distinction for 'active', going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 project feature flags based on project context and parameters. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_feature_flags', but the name 'list_project_flags' implies project-specific scope.

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 when to set 'active=True' (resolved flags) vs 'active=False' (project-only) and mentions glob pattern filtering. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_feature_flags'.

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