get_generic_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 transparency. It adds useful context by revealing the underlying HTTP method and endpoint ('POST /genericFlag/get') and the access tier ('readonly-owner'), which implies a read-only operation with owner-level permissions. However, it does not disclose behaviors like error handling, response format, or effect of exceeding the 1000-ID limit, which would be valuable. The tier and endpoint are genuine additions, but coverage is incomplete.

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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence stating the action and limit, followed by a technical mapping and tier tag. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, the input constraint, the underlying endpoint, and the access tier. What's missing is a description of the return format, but since no output schema is provided and this is a straightforward get-by-ID operation, the absence is acceptable. It could benefit from a note about what 'full flag-label records' contain, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema describes only an array of numbers for genericFlagIDs with no coverage of meaning (0%). The description compensates by indicating these IDs correspond to 'flag-label records' and introduces a max of 1000 IDs, which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful context, but it could go further (e.g., explaining the structure of a flag-label record or any formatting requirements). Still, the description provides the most critical semantic: the IDs identify flag labels and are batch-limited.

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 tool's function: 'Get full flag-label records for up to 1000 IDs.' It specifies a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('flag-label records'), and includes a key constraint (up to 1000 IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_generic_flags, which likely perform query-based retrieval rather than batch get by ID.

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: you should call this tool when you have a list of specific generic flag IDs and need the full records, up to a limit of 1000. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative (e.g., search_generic_flags) or provide exclusion criteria. The 'up to 1000 IDs' hints at a batch size limit but does not frame it as guidance versus alternatives.

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