feat_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly frames the tool as a read operation ('Get') and reveals what the caller receives ('complete entry with description merged in'), which is sufficient for a simple lookup. It does not describe error behavior for missing exact matches, but that is a minor gap for this tool type.

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 sentences with no waste: the core action and exact-name condition come first, the return value second, and the routing guidance last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup tool with only one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the key invocation detail ('exact name') and the return expectation ('complete entry with description merged in'). Source and ruleset disambiguation are already covered by the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documentents all three parameters. The description's phrase 'exact name' reinforces the name parameter but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('specific D&D 5e feat'), and the distinguishing condition ('exact name'). It also names the sibling tool it should be preferred over (feat_search), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: when you have an exact feat name. It also names the alternative (feat_search) and says to prefer this tool in that case, implying search is for cases without an exact name.

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