get_plan_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get features' but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response behavior. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description provides the basic purpose but lacks details about the return value format or whether it returns a list of strings or objects. Given no output schema, additional context would help an agent interpret results correctly. However, for a simple retrieval tool, it is minimally adequate.

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 description adds no additional meaning beyond the input schema, which already fully describes the single parameter with 100% coverage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 action ('get') and the resource ('features available on the workspace current plan'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_feature_flags' and 'check_feature_usage' by specifying it retrieves plan features, not flags or usage. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these related tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_feature_flags' or 'check_feature_usage'). No context on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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