Feature Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the failure behavior ('An unknown name fails loudly'), which tells the agent it should expect errors rather than silent fallback when given an unregistered template name.

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?

Two sentences, purpose first, followed by a compact return-shape spec and the failure caveat. No filler. The inline output-type annotation is verbose but earns its place since there is no output schema to document the return 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?

For a single-parameter introspection tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description fully enumerates the return shape ({schema, template, doc, refs, inputs, emits}), details the fields inside refs and inputs, and states the failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining `template`. It does so indirectly ('one feature template's...') which clarifies that the parameter selects which feature template to introspect, but it never states what form the value takes (name string? registered ID?) or whether it must reference a valid registered template. Adequate but minimal compensation for a zero-coverage schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Return') plus resource ('one feature template's declared REF+INPUT SCHEMA') and scopes precisely to reference geometry and scalar parameters. It self-identifies against sibling schema tool recipe_schema by domain (feature vs recipe) and against feature_list/validate/instantiate by being the introspection tool. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 makes the intent self-evident (inspect a feature template's schema) but never explicitly states when to prefer this over sibling tools such as recipe_schema, feature_list, or feature_validate. There is no direct alternative routing or exclusion guidance, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and purpose.

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