Get FEAT schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains provenance (`specmgr schema`, pre-commit hook/CI refresh) and that the document includes a `$comment` layout-version marker for detecting shape changes. It omits how the raw text is delivered (size, pagination/truncation) or whether the fetch has side effects, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the disambiguation and usage rules in priority order. It is a single dense sentence with several parentheticals; nothing is wasted, but the length slightly taxes readability.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Given a zero-parameter, no-annotation tool, the description covers what it is, what it returns, where it comes from, when to call it, when not to, and which sibling to use instead — nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 there are no semantics to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no spurious parameter talk.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the FEAT domain's generated JSON Schema ... as raw text') and immediately contrasts it with the markdown view and with `get_feat_template`. An agent can distinguish it from get_feat_template, get_feat_example, and the sibling *_schema tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit positive triggers ('constraint discovery, structural questions, or an unresolved validation error') and an explicit prohibition ('never as a mandatory pre-authoring fetch'). It also names the alternative tool to use for authoring start, so the routing decision is fully specified.

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