feature_flags

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does describe display behavior (shows status per environment, rollout, tags) and the multi-select generation behavior. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether code generation modifies state, whether selection persists, or output format since there's no output schema.

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 concise sentences covering the main function and key behaviors without verbosity. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose then supported details. Slightly could be tighter, but every sentence 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 moderate-complexity tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains browsing behavior, the multi-select generation capability, and what data is shown. However, given no annotations and no output schema, it could say more about the generated code output or any persistence side effects to be fully complete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (flags, filter, environment) with descriptions. The description adds context around the primary action (multi-select to generate hooks) but doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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?

Description states a clear purpose: browse and select feature flags to generate SDK code. It uses specific verbs and mentions concrete details (flag status per environment, rollout percentages, tags). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the description is specific enough that differentiation is largely self-evident given the disjoint sibling names.

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 usage context (browsing/selecting flags before generating code) and mentions multi-select capability for generating hooks. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives, and the filter/environment parameter usage is only implied through schema descriptions.

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