List Feature Flags (Admin)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context by stating the output includes 'gating configuration' but does not disclose other behaviors like required admin permissions or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the verb 'List' and immediately specifies the resource and what is included, making it optimally concise.

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 zero-parameter list tool with strong annotations, the description adequately explains the purpose and what the output contains ('all feature flags with their gating configuration'). Without an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the return value expectation.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add anything.

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' with a clear resource ('feature flags') and adds relevant detail ('gating configuration'). This distinguishes it from sibling 'get' tools and conveys the scope of the operation.

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 all feature flags but does not explicitly mention alternatives such as lyzr_get_feature_flag_admin or lyzr_get_feature_flags, nor does it provide when/when-not guidance. It relies on the tool name 'admin' to differentiate.

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