get_feature_flags

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like authentication, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. It only states what is listed, missing any behavioral context. For a read-only listing, even minimal transparency would help.

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 sentence that directly states the action and output fields. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no extraneous 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?

While the description is clear for a simple list tool, it lacks mention of potential pagination, exhaustive nature of the list, or any limitations. Given no output schema, some behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 covers the single parameter (active_only) with a description in the schema itself (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists feature flags and specifies the fields included (keys, enabled status, rollout percentages, targeting conditions). This is specific and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does, especially given sibling tools are in different domains.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings, when not to use it, or any prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool's purpose alone.

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