list_feature_flags

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it lists all flags and shows specific fields, which gives some transparency about return values. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, side effects (though read-only is implied by 'List'), or any permission requirements beyond what the schema parameters suggest.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every word contributes. It avoids verbosity and repeats no schema information.

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 simple list tool without an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the resource, scope, and what fields are returned. The schema fills in parameter details. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools and any note about default limits or filtering behavior beyond the parameter definitions, leaving minor gaps.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and active), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('PostHog feature flags') and mentions the project scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_feature_flag. It also lists the fields returned (name, key, active status, rollout percentage), making the purpose 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 implies usage for listing feature flags and gives context (project scope), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evaluate_feature_flag. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, so guidance is only implied.

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