get_feature_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so safety and side-effect profile is covered. The description adds that results include traced imports and role classification, useful output context, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or return shape.

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 compact sentence with the key scope (keyword + traced imports) front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement of purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does describe the shape (files + imports, classified by role). However, it omits how the keyword is matched and when to prefer it over search siblings, leaving a gap for a 3-param query tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%; the description maps the 'feature keyword' to the required keyword param and hints at import tracing, but adds no format or syntax for project or max_results beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource (files) and scope: files matching a feature keyword plus traced imports, with role classification. An agent can grasp the concept, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_codebase or get_file_dependencies.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among many overlapping siblings (search_codebase, find_symbol, get_file_dependencies). The agent must infer the scenario from the description alone.

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