get-required-features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: mandatory features auto-hide when the underlying capability is disabled but must still exist in the build. This is valuable context beyond a simple read operation. It does not cover side effects, auth needs, or rate limits, but the disclosed behavior is significant.

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 dense but concise, with five sentences each adding essential information: primary purpose, type of features, mandatory behavior, parameter guidance, and default behavior. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (user-capability-level features) and key behavioral detail (mandatory even if disabled). It does not detail the structure of the checklist (e.g., fields), but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use it.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the tuning effect of salesChannelId and noting that connectionId is a deprecated alias. This helps the agent understand parameter purpose and consequences beyond the schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a 'functional coverage checklist' for a Brainerce store, specifying it returns user-capability-level features (not pages or file paths). The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'required features' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the checklist nature and user-capability focus.

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 explains that passing a salesChannelId tunes the checklist to a live store, while omitting it returns a generic checklist. It also notes that mandatory features must exist even if disabled. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like get-store-capabilities.

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