get_feature

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a real prerequisite (Kiln Pro entitlement) with a remediation link, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for unknown ids, or what a 'feature version' payload contains.

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 tool-relevant content is front-loaded in one sentence, but two of the four lines are product marketing and an upgrade URL that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Meaningful content is buried under promotional padding.

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 and no output schema, the description should explain what a retrieved feature version represents and returns; instead it pivots to a sales pitch about reusable presets. An agent knows the input id and the entitlement requirement but little else.

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 0% for the single parameter feature_version_id, and the description only echoes it as 'its id' with no format, provenance, or where-to-find-it information. It does not compensate for the documentation gap, though the single-parameter shape limits the damage.

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 names a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (feature version), and the phrase 'by its id' distinguishes it from list-style siblings such as list_feature_versions. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (get_design, get_decoration_preset, get_feature_release) an agent might confuse it with.

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 statement of when to call this versus list_feature_versions, list_features, or save_feature/rollback_feature. The only conditional information is an entitlement gate ('Requires Kiln Pro' with an upgrade URL), which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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