get_feature_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavior. It mentions classification by role but omits details like how imports are traced, whether the search is recursive, file type restrictions, or return structure. More context is needed for an agent to understand side effects or limitations.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the matching and classification aspects.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what 'feature keyword' means, how imports are resolved, what roles imply, or how results are sorted/limited. An agent may not have enough context to use the 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 has 67% coverage (keyword has no description). The description adds no parameter-specific details; it only says files are classified by role. For the keyword parameter, the schema doesn't explain its purpose, and the description doesn't compensate. The other parameters are somewhat documented in the schema but not enriched by the description.

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 tool returns files matching a feature keyword and traced imports, classified by role (core, test, config). It uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource as feature files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files and search_codebase, though it could be more explicit about the concept of 'traced imports'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g., project must be active), or what types of queries are appropriate. An agent would need to guess the context.

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