Get Feature Studio specs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is established. The description adds useful context that the result is specifically the custom-feature-calling specs of a Feature Studio, but it does not disclose the return shape, ordering, or any other behavioral details. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation but adds only modest context beyond it.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core object (feature specifications from a Feature Studio) and immediately states its purpose. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only getter with three fully documented input parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete enough mental model: the tool returns the feature specs a Feature Studio defines so its custom features can be called. It does not enumerate the spec fields, but the stated purpose is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter (doc, ws, elem) has a clear description referencing Onshape URL segments. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already fully documents all three required parameters, the baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('feature specifications a Feature Studio defines') and the purpose ('for calling its custom features'), which distinguishes it from the broader onshape_get_feature_specs sibling. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' but the title supplies the action, so the intended operation is clear.

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 phrase 'for calling its custom features' implies the appropriate use case: when an agent needs the specs needed to invoke custom features defined by a Feature Studio. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over onshape_get_feature_specs or other feature-related siblings, leaving the differentiation mostly to inference.

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