get_feature

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'current value' indicates it returns runtime state rather than static configuration. It does not mention error behavior for invalid names, but for a simple read tool this is not a significant gap.

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 one well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action and object come first, and the source of the parameter is appended efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the operation, the target, and the prerequisite source of names. The only missing detail is behavior for an unknown or invalid name, but that is not essential for tool selection and invocation.

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 already documents 'name' as a control name with an example, and coverage is 100%. The description adds a small useful nuance by saying the name comes from list_features, but otherwise relies on the schema, which is appropriate at this simplicity level.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one menu control's current value'), and the lookup key ('by its name'). The singular 'one' clearly distinguishes this from list_features, and 'Read' distinguishes it from set_feature, so the agent can select it correctly without inspecting schemas.

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 phrase '(from list_features)' gives explicit context that valid names come from list_features, effectively telling the agent to call list_features first. It does not explicitly exclude set_feature or connection_status, but the single-item read intent is clear enough for this small sibling set.

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