describe_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure weight. It reveals that COM driver may return None for through/depth, indicating a degradation in capability. It does not mention idempotency or auth, but for a read-only feature inspection tool, the provided details are sufficient.

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 mostly concise but includes a Spanish fragment at the start which may confuse some agents. The key information is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, but the bilingual aspect slightly reduces clarity.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: return fields, usage scenario, parameter specification, and limitations. It is complete for agent invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for feature_name: exact name, verbatim requirement, locale-sensitivity, and source (get_active_part_info). This is critical for proper invocation and far exceeds basic schema repetition.

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 reads a built feature's definition and lists the returned fields. It also mentions its use by verify_build_report, providing a specific use case that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_feature_inventory.

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 explains when to use the tool (e.g., for distinguishing through-hole vs blind features) and provides conditions for accurate results (rich path vs COM driver, locale-sensitive feature names). This gives clear guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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