Get account feature flags

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the set of keys is not stable across accounts and should be treated as a loose flag bag rather than a fixed schema, which is important non-obvious behavior. It does not fully describe the response container or error behavior, but the zero-parameter read-only nature reduces that need.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every phrase adds value: the purpose, concrete examples, and the unstable-schema warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it: it returns boolean feature flags, explains their purpose, and warns about schema instability. It could add a bit more about the exact return shape (e.g., object mapping flag names to booleans), but the warning partially covers that by calling it a 'loose flag bag'.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the returned flags mean rather than input details.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource: boolean feature flags used to decide which product sections appear in the web console left nav. It also gives concrete examples (Remote PC, E2 object storage, 360 backup), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling account tools like get_account_usage or get_dashboard.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs to know which feature flags are enabled for an account, especially to understand UI section visibility. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the unique purpose among siblings is clear, and no misleading usage signals are present.

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