flags_get_active

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It discloses the auth requirement (red or white team membership), which is useful context. However, it does not specify response format, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. For a read-only GET of a list, this is partial transparency.

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 starting with the verb 'Get' and immediately specifies the resource and included fields. It is compact and front-loaded, with no 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, so the description covers the core purpose and auth requirement. However, it lacks any mention of how this tool relates to sibling flag tools (solves/totals), leaving some contextual ambiguity. Given the low complexity, it's nearly complete but not quite.

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 there is nothing to document. The description doesn't discuss parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 is granted 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 tool retrieves all active flags and enumerates the included fields (type, platform, permissions, path, content). It distinguishes from siblings like flags_get_solves and flags_get_totals by focusing on the raw active flag data rather than derived metrics. Verb 'Get' and resource 'all active flags' are specific.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling flag tools. It mentions a membership prerequisite but offers no direct comparison to alternatives like flags_get_solves or flags_get_totals. Usage is implied by the name and field list, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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