get_features

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 adds key behavioral traits: it specifies that the API is paginated and that the page limit is always 100. This informs the agent about performance constraints and data handling, which is crucial for a list operation. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and key behavioral details. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and pagination behavior well, but lacks details on usage guidelines, error handling, and full parameter semantics. For a simple list tool, this is minimally viable but could be more comprehensive.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description compensates by implying pagination context, which relates to the 'page' parameter, but it doesn't explicitly explain what 'page' does or its format. This adds some value but doesn't fully clarify the parameter's role, keeping it at the baseline for minimal coverage.

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 ('a list of all features'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_feature_detail' (which returns a single feature) by indicating it returns a list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'get_components' or 'get_notes' beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_features' over 'get_feature_detail' for individual features, or how it relates to other list tools like 'get_components'. There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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