oss_report_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it scans/analyzes the repository (cost, latency), or how pagination via limit/offset behaves. The only content is a taxonomy hint, which does not describe behavior.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but it is a fragment with no verb, so the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. A single additional clause naming the action and return shape would have cost little.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description must compensate for everything and does not. An agent cannot determine the operation type, the meaning of required inputs, or the shape of the result from this text alone.

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 0% and the description never mentions project_id, limit, or offset. Three parameters, including the required project_id, are left entirely undocumented in both schema and 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 is a noun phrase ('기능 카탈로그' / feature catalog) that largely restates the tool name 'oss_report_features' without a verb stating what it does with project_id. The parenthetical list of entry-point categories (http / cli / main / scheduler...) is the only substantive addition, hinting at how features are classified, but an agent still cannot tell whether this lists, builds, or summarizes 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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings oss_report_coverage and oss_report_export, nor any prerequisite or sequencing guidance. Usage can only be inferred from the word 'report' and the tool name.

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