list_feature_kinds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-annotated fact — a Kiln Pro tier entitlement requirement — plus a hint that a parameter spec is returned. It says nothing about size, caching, or output structure beyond that.

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 very short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite; nothing is wasted. The tier note is delivered as a bare fragment ("Needs Kiln Pro."), which is terse but still readable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only enumeration with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (feature kinds with parameter specs) and the one access condition. The remaining gaps — whether results are paged or organized by category — are minor for a static catalog.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to call it.

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?

"Enumerate every supported feature kind with its parameter spec" gives a specific verb (enumerate) and a specific resource (feature kinds), plus the shape of the return content. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_features or list_feature_versions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 explicit when-to-use framing and no named alternative, so the agent must infer that this is a discovery/catalog call made before invoking feature-specific tools. The gating note "Needs Kiln Pro" is a useful prerequisite but is a condition, not selection guidance.

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