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 disclosure burden. It implies a read-only listing on the active document, but does not state the document must be open, whether it errors when no document is active, or any size/pagination limits. With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere, but behavioral prerequisites remain unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the workflow rationale. No redundant restatement of the name or schema content; every clause 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?

Given a nested-parameter schema with full coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a read tool. It could go further by stating it is non-mutating and that an active document is required, but those gaps are minor.

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%, with both nested sub-parameters (include_suppressed, max_assembly_depth) fully documented in the schema, including the default and the Part-vs-Assembly scope of max_assembly_depth. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List feature-tree entries') scoped to 'the active SolidWorks document', which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like list_components and classify_feature_tree. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('read-before-write workflows where the agent must inspect existing model structure before adding or editing downstream features'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state exclusion conditions versus other inspection tools (e.g., classify_feature_tree, get_model_info).

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