feature_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or other traits like requiring a flight controller connection. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is listed (features) and what information is returned (enabled/disabled state). It could mention the return format, but the core information is present.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (schema description coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is sufficient.

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 tool lists all features and their enabled/disabled state on the flight controller. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('features'), and the output is defined. The tool is distinct from siblings like feature_enable and feature_disable which modify features.

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 implies this tool is for viewing features, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus feature_enable or feature_disable. It provides no context on prerequisites (e.g., requiring a connection) or exclusions.

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