cross_feature_ab_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a Kiln Pro entitlement requirement, but does not say whether the tool is read-only, what data is returned, whether it mutates anything, or how failures are surfaced; the marketing copy adds noise rather than behavioral clarity.

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?

Only the first sentence is task-relevant. The remaining plan-comparison marketing text and upgrade URL are front-loaded after the purpose but do not help an agent invoke the tool, making the definition unnecessarily bloated.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter documentation, the description should explain the report's behavior and parameter meaning more fully. Instead it prioritizes subscription marketing, leaving important invocation context missing.

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 only 50%: feature_id has no schema description, and min_outcomes_per_branch only notes the default. The description does not explain what feature_id identifies, what an outcome is, or how the minimum threshold affects ranking, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: rank feature-branch variants by per-outcome performance. It is clear enough to act on, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as cross_branch_ab_report or cross_preset_ab_report.

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 on when to use this versus the other A/B report tools, no preconditions beyond paid-plan gating, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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