Get sys features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the raw API endpoint being proxied and the nature of the payload, but says nothing about response format, size, or device-dependence beyond 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?

A single short line with zero waste, front-loading the endpoint and the returned data. The backtick-formatted path is slightly opaque to an agent that does not know the HDHomeRun API, but it is compact and information-dense.

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, read-only getter with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say a bit more about what 'features' contains (e.g., a list of channelmap/modulation identifiers) so an agent knows what it will get back.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly does not invent any. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty schema matches the no-argument behavior implied.

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 names the specific endpoint (/sys/features) and states what it yields: supported channelmaps/modulations for this device. That distinguishes it from adjacent sys getters like get_sys_model, get_sys_version, and get_sys_copyright. The verb is only implied by the tool name, but the resource and its contents are unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than get_channelmap, get_sys_model, or the other discovery/sys tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the endpoint path.

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