get_feature_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively reveals two key traits: pagination (a structural behavior) and a fixed page limit of 100 (a constraint). This goes beyond basic functionality to inform the agent about operational characteristics.

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 zero waste: the first states the core purpose, the second adds critical behavioral context (pagination and limit). Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with essential information.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and key behavioral constraints (pagination/limit). However, it lacks details on response format, error handling, or how to interpret 'feature statuses' in context of sibling tools, leaving some gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'page', and the tool description provides no information about parameters. However, with only one parameter and a default value in the schema, the baseline is 3 as the schema does minimal but sufficient lifting.

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 states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of all feature statuses'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_features' or 'get_feature_detail', but the specific focus on 'statuses' provides some implicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_features' or 'get_feature_detail'. The description only states what it does, without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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