get_single_feature_flag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'fetches' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information succinctly.

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 complexity of a read operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how errors are handled, or dependencies like authentication. For a tool that fetches specific data, more context is needed to ensure reliable use by an agent, especially with siblings that might overlap in functionality.

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 50%, with the 'id' parameter documented but 'project' lacking a description. The tool description mentions 'a specific feature flag', which aligns with the 'id' parameter, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'id' or clarify the role of 'project'. Since coverage is moderate, the description doesn't fully compensate but doesn't worsen the gap, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('fetches') and resource ('a specific feature flag from the GrowthBook API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_feature_flags' (plural) or 'get_experiment', which might retrieve similar data. The specificity of 'single' in the tool name helps, but the description could be more explicit about this distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_feature_flags' for listing multiple flags or 'get_experiment' for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a project context. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between similar tools in the server.

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