gam_features

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

Discloses read-only mode, OAuth requirement, zero credits, and output format. Explains caching behavior (cached vs live-probe). No contradicting annotations. Lacks mention of rate limits or error handling, but adequate given annotations absence.

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?

Extremely concise with clear section headers (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE). Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, auth, output, and actions well. Explains caching behavior and sub-action selection. Lacks details on default network_code behavior and error cases, but sufficient for a simple read-only tool with full schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what is already in the schema's parameter descriptions, merely rephrasing the action enum values.

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 'Inspect GAM network features' with specific verb and resource, and the first line explicitly defines the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gam_admin' and 'gam_jobs' by focusing on feature inspection.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call before using advanced GAM features' and 'Use probe_gam_features when you need to test a specific capability live.' Includes context for when to use each sub-action, though does not exhaustively list all alternatives.

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