list_features

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as a read-only list, detailing the output fields (name, type, read/write, current value). While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', the context is clear.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage advice, third details output content, and finally the parameter description. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple interface (one optional parameter, no required fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers behavior and return values. It also fits well within the sibling toolset.

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 input schema has one optional parameter (category) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining its purpose (filter by category subtree) and providing concrete examples ('AcquisitionControl', 'ImageFormatControl').

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 that the tool returns the list of GenICam features provided by the camera. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_feature/set_feature by emphasizing that it should be used first to avoid guessing.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool before get_feature/set_feature to verify supported features, as they vary per camera. It also explains the optional category parameter for filtering.

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