get_feature_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It lists the return contents (description, components, files, ownership, decisions, conflicts), which is informative. It does not mention side effects or performance, but for a read-only 'get' tool, this is adequate.

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: the first states purpose and output, the second adds usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and concisely written, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient completeness: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could mention that it is read-only, but that is implied.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses the verb 'Get' and specifies 'FULL details for a specific feature', clearly indicating the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_context and get_project_context by stating it returns comprehensive details including decisions and conflicts.

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 explicitly states 'Always call this before modifying code that belongs to a feature', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use, but the context implies preparatory use.

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