get_feature_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions ranking by vote count and de-duplication, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't disclose important aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. Every element earns its place.

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 read operation with 4 well-documented parameters but no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic context about what's being retrieved. However, it doesn't explain the return format, result structure, or error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, this leaves the agent with incomplete information about what to expect.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 verb 'get' and resource 'feature requests' with specific characteristics: 'AI-extracted', 'ranked by vote count', and 'auto-extracted from user feedback and de-duplicated'. It distinguishes from generic list operations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'merge_feature_requests' or 'update_feature_request'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'merge_feature_requests' or 'update_feature_request'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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