get_feature_detail

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that matching is done against detected routes, controllers, services, etc., giving some insight into the search scope. However, it does not discuss edge cases (e.g., no match, multiple matches) or the nature of the returned context, leaving gaps in 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 concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and adds relevant matching details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly linking parameters to their roles.

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?

Given the tool has two required parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description lacks crucial information about the 'path' parameter and usage context. It does not set expectations for the return value or when to prefer this tool over alternatives, making it incomplete for effective selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and two undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value. It only implies that 'name' is the feature name, leaving 'path' entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving detailed code context for a feature by name. It specifies that matching occurs against routes, controllers, services, etc., distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_symbols or find_features. However, the 'path' parameter is not explained, causing slight ambiguity in the full scope of the tool.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the purpose implies use when needing detailed context for a named feature, there is no mention of alternative scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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