get_feature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the Kiln Pro entitlement gate, which is genuinely useful context not present in the structured fields. It says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown or unauthorized id, which is the main remaining behavioral question for a single-id fetch.

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: the operation first, the requirement second. Nothing is padded and the key constraint is not buried.

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 one-parameter read with full schema coverage and clearing annotations, the definition covers the essentials. It is thin on how to obtain a valid feature_version_id and on the shape of the returned version, though the absence of an output schema makes the latter less critical.

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%: feature_version_id is documented as a UUID of the version to fetch. The description's 'by its id' restates this without adding format, sourcing, or validity details, so the schema is doing the work and the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a specific feature version by its id.' That clearly distinguishes it from the many list_* siblings such as list_feature_versions and list_features. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from get_design_version or the other get_* lookups in the same domain.

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?

'Needs Kiln Pro' gives a concrete prerequisite that affects whether the agent can call it at all, which is real guidance. Beyond that, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over list_feature_versions (to discover an id) or over the design-level getters, so the routing is only implied.

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