request_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('request a new feature') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the request is saved, who receives it, or if any side effects occur. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 description is composed of two short sentences, entirely free of fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a clear function: stating the tool's action and explaining when to use it.

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?

Given the low complexity of this tool, the absence of an output schema, and the rich parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, which is all that is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the input schema already describes all four parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema. According to the rubric, the baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and no further value is added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Request a new feature or capability for the Vivado MCP server.' It uses a specific verb ('request') and resource ('feature'), and it differentiates from sibling tools like list_feature_requests, which handles listing existing requests.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'when you encounter a limitation or wish you had a tool that doesn't exist.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or discuss alternatives like list_feature_requests.

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