Read a Feature Studio

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that the content is FeatureScript source, but does not disclose response format, error behavior, or whether it reflects the currently saved state. This is minimal but acceptable given the annotation.

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 six-word fragment that conveys one essential fact without filler or repetition. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded.

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 simple read-only lookup with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description tells the agent that the result is the FeatureScript source. It does not detail response encoding or error cases, but the tool is simple enough that the information provided is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%: doc, ws, and elem each have clear descriptions referencing the Onshape URL structure. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline 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 identifies the returned content specifically as 'FeatureScript source' of a Feature Studio, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_feature_studio_specs or set_feature_studio. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase, but the tool name and title supply the read action clearly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onshape_get_feature_studio_specs or onshape_set_feature_studio. The phrase 'FeatureScript source' weakly implies a read-for-content use case, but no when/when-not conditions or exclusions are provided.

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