Get Feature Flags

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with these. It adds context that flags are 'resolved', meaning effective values after evaluation, not raw definitions, which is useful behavioral information beyond what annotations provide.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the core function and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the return format or value types (e.g., a map of flag names to booleans), which would be helpful since no output schema exists. Still, the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description effectively conveys that no additional inputs are needed, and the 'current caller' is implicitly derived from the execution context. This meets the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'resolved feature flags applicable to the current caller'. This distinguishes it from admin-oriented siblings like lyzr_list_feature_flags_admin and lyzr_get_feature_flag_admin, making the tool's 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 phrase 'applicable to the current caller' implicitly suggests this is for runtime flag resolution, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the admin flag tools or other related tools. It implies usage context but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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