feature_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does describe the return shape ({schema, count, templates} with field mappings), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, whether templates are mutable, or other behavioral traits. Adequate but with gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 dense sentence followed by the return-shape clause, front-loading the core action. It's information-dense and every clause contributes, though the extended parenthetical explanation is somewhat heavy.

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?

Completes the picture for a read-only list tool with zero parameters and no annotations: it names the resource, describes what a template contains, gives the return shape, and routes to the next tools. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing structure. Minor gaps in behavioral traits remain but the essentials are covered.

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?

There are zero input parameters, which gives a baseline of 4. The description adds context about the domain (reference geometry like frames, f_/e_ tags, axes plus scalar parameters) rather than restating parameters, which is appropriate.

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+resource ('List every registered FEATURE TEMPLATE') and elaborates on what a feature template is (PowerCopy/UDF analog of a part recipe with reference-geometry inputs stamped onto a host). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings feature_schema and feature_instantiate.

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 says to browse this directory before picking one with feature_schema / feature_instantiate, which gives clear ordering guidance relative to siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or include exclusion conditions, but the workflow context is clear.

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