nest_intake_flags

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: flags are produced from classifier misses above a configurable threshold, and the delta is never auto-applied — a human ratifies it. This clarifies the workflow and reinforces the read-only, non-destructive nature of the operation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and both the threshold mechanism and the human-ratification caveat earn their place by explaining what the tool does and why it is safe.

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?

This is a one-parameter list tool with no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned flags look like and how app_id affects results. It does neither. The conceptual explanation is strong, but an agent still has open questions about how to actually invoke it correctly and interpret the response.

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 schema has one required parameter, app_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention app_id at all. An agent must infer its meaning and valid values purely from the parameter name, with no guidance on how it scopes the returned flags or how to obtain it.

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 "List open rule-delta flags" — a specific verb and resource. The "rule-delta" qualifier and the threshold explanation give it a distinct identity among the many list-style siblings, though it never explicitly names or differentiates itself from similar tools like friction_flags_list or nest_intake_queue.

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 useful workflow context: these flags are proposed rule changes that a human must ratify, and the classifier never rewrites its own rules. This implicitly tells an agent when this tool is relevant for human review. However, it gives no exclusions, no alternative tool routing, and no guidance for choosing it over the many sibling list tools.

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