get_featured

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: the tool returns files with specific quality criteria (90+), and they are verified/complete/production-tested. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core action and criteria, and the second adds context on quality and usage. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic context (purpose, quality criteria, usage hint). However, for a tool that returns data, it lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps in completeness despite the low complexity.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, but with no params, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps. It does imply the quality score threshold, which is a semantic constraint not in the schema.

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's purpose: 'Return all featured instruction files (quality score 90+)'. It specifies the resource (featured instruction files) and the selection criteria (quality score 90+). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_instruction' or 'search_registry', which might also retrieve instructions.

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 implies usage by stating these files are 'verified, complete, and production-tested' and a 'good starting point for finding high-quality instructions'. This suggests when to use it (for high-quality starting points), but it doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions compared to sibling tools like 'search_registry' for filtered searches.

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