list_features

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that danger:true controls can write game memory and require armed writes, which is important side-effect and prerequisite information. It does not explicitly state that calling list_features itself is read-only, but the 'list' wording implies that, and the caveat is applied to the controls, not the listing 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?

The description is a single focused sentence with a parenthetical expansion of what counts as a menu control and a targeted safety caveat. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase contributes to correct usage.

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 zero-parameter enumeration tool, the description covers what is returned (all controls with current values) and flags an important safety prerequisite for a subset of controls. There is no output schema, so a fully specified return format would be nice, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 is empty, so the no-parameter baseline applies. The description adds useful output semantics by noting that each listed control is returned 'with its current value,' which goes beyond the empty schema even though there are no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List every menu control,' and identifies the resource (overlay menu controls) and scope (feature checkboxes, sliders, comboboxes). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_feature and set_feature, which appear to target single features rather than enumerate all of them.

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's 'list every' phrasing implies this is the enumeration tool, while get_feature and set_feature likely handle individual lookups and mutations. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over those alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the usage decision partly to inference.

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