Get feature specifications

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying what the tool returns and that it is scoped to 'this Part Studio.' It also frames the tool as a prerequisite for add_feature payload construction. No contradiction with 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?

Two compact sentences carry significant information: the first defines the output content and scope, the second gives the usage trigger. There is no redundant wording.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent what the response will contain and when to invoke this tool. All required parameters are schema-documented, and the workflow purpose is clear. Nothing essential is missing for a read-only lookup 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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat their meanings. It adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, which matches the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: it returns the parameter ids, enum names, and defaults Onshape expects for feature types in a Part Studio. This distinguishes it from onshape_get_features, which would retrieve actual features rather than their specifications.

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?

Provides an explicit, actionable usage instruction: 'Read this before hand-writing a payload for onshape_add_feature.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is concrete and unambiguous.

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