list_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', implying read-only, but it does not mention output shape, pagination, filtering, required permissions, or any other runtime 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?

The entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence. There is no filler or redundant detail; every word carries meaning.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, this is minimally adequate: it names the resource and its scope. However, it does not explain what 'features' means, how results are returned, or what distinguishes inferred from observed features, leaving contextual gaps.

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 only loosely maps to the analysis_id parameter with 'for an analysis'. This is minimal compensation since the parameter name already indicates it is an analysis identifier.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' plus a clear resource, 'features' with 'inferred and observed' qualifiers, scoped to 'an analysis'. It distinguishes clearly from sibling tools like list_findings and list_screens, which focus on different artifact types.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of the siblings. The phrase 'for an analysis' implies a usage context, but it does not offer any alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, so the agent gets no direction for selecting between list_features, list_findings, or get_analysis.

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