feature_intent_index

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description only states the action without any behavioral context.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It is front-loaded with the essential action but omits details that would help an agent select and use the tool appropriately.

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 tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description should provide more context on how the tool processes feature files and returns summaries. It lacks information about the expected return format or any constraints beyond parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify how 'query' filters or how 'limit' is applied. The schema already describes each parameter sufficiently.

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 builds/search scenario intent summaries from feature files. It identifies the resource (scenario intent summaries) and the action (build/search), but does not differentiate from similar search tools among siblings like search_test_case or global_search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool is preferred over sibling tools such as search_test_case or find_path.

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