geometry_list_features

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses default parameter behaviors but omits side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool modifies state. A listing tool likely has minimal side effects, but no explicit confirmation.

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?

Concise and structured with Args and Returns sections. However, the Returns line is somewhat vague ('List of geometry features with their types'). Could be slightly more specific without adding bloat.

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?

No output schema, but description mentions return type. However, lacks details on how the return list is structured or what 'types' refer to. Adequate for a simple list tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 coverage, the description adds meaningful defaults and explanations for both parameters (geometry_name defaulting to first geometry, model_name defaulting to current model). This compensates for the bare 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'features in a geometry sequence', distinguishing it from siblings like geometry_add_feature or geometry_list. However, it could be more specific about what 'features' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, when-not to use, or mention related tools.

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