feature_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return shape and that unknown names cause a loud failure, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or whether it requires an open document, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a dense but efficient return structure and an error note. Every element is relevant, with no filler or repetition.

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 absence of an output schema means the description must explain return values, which it does in detail. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document), where to find valid template names, and other usage context, leaving it only adequately complete for a schema retrieval tool.

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 must compensate. It identifies the parameter as a feature template name and warns about unknown names, but gives no format, examples, or pointer to how valid names are obtained, adding only minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'template' string.

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 states a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'one feature template's declared REF+INPUT SCHEMA', making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like feature_list or feature_validate, but the scope is distinct enough for an agent to understand what it 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as feature_list or feature_instantiate. The note that 'an unknown name fails loudly' is a behavioral warning, not usage context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate call conditions.

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