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 burden, and it discloses almost nothing about behavior. It hints at a paywall ('Requires Kiln Pro'), but the surrounding sentence about saving presets is marketing copy, leaving it ambiguous whether the listing itself is gated. There is no mention of result volume, pagination, or how 'latest version' is determined.

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 does definition work. The remaining three are promotional: a Kiln Pro upsell, a duplicate 'Requires Kiln Pro' line, and a pricing URL. The upsell is repeated and crowds out any operational detail.

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-annotation, no-output-schema tool with an ambiguous design_id parameter, the description should clarify scope and gating. Instead it spends its budget on marketing, leaving the agent without enough to invoke the tool confidently or know how to handle the Pro requirement.

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 67%; the booleans carry default notes in the schema, but design_id is undocumented in both places. The description says 'every known feature' without reconciling that against a design_id scoping parameter, so the two are in tension and the agent cannot infer what design_id filters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the latest version of every known feature. But nothing distinguishes it from close siblings such as list_feature_versions, list_feature_releases, or get_feature, so the agent cannot tell which one to pick without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though the sibling list contains several overlapping feature-listing tools. The only conditional statement is 'Requires Kiln Pro', and it does not say what happens when the caller lacks Pro.

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