friction_flags_list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the durable trace and most-recent-first ordering, but critically omits that app_id is required and scopes results. This is a significant gap for a required parameter, leaving the agent to infer that results are app-specific.

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, front-loaded with the action, and adds useful context in the dash clause. It is efficient and well-structured, though the phrase 'durable trace...' is somewhat dense but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what a friction flag is, what the response contains, and how app_id filters results. It does none of these, making it only minimally adequate for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It indirectly hints at ordering and recency (relating to limit) but never clarifies app_id, which is the sole required parameter. The meaning of app_id and the exact effect of limit are left unstated.

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'), identifies the resource ('recent friction flags'), and clarifies the source ('recorded by friction_scan') plus ordering ('most recent first'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like friction_scan (which creates flags) and other list tools.

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 clear context by stating this lists flags from friction_scan, implying it is the read counterpart for reviewing scan results. It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives, but no direct alternative exists for listing friction flags, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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