list_features

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that features are listed and which fields appear, but omits any details on side effects (likely read-only but not stated), pagination, limits, permissions, or error behavior. The agent cannot infer the full operational footprint from the description alone.

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 concise sentence, which is structurally efficient. However, its brevity is due to under-specification rather than purposeful precision. It earns credit for being front-loaded and clear about the output fields, but lacks necessary detail, so it does not reach the higher range.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how parameters affect the result, what the response looks like, or any operational constraints. For a list operation with filtering parameters, an agent would struggle to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'kinds', 'max_items', or 'document_id' at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema names, which are also undescribed. This is a major gap for a tool with three optional parameters that likely control filtering and limits.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('existing 3D features') and lists the fields returned (reference, index, fingerprint, state). This distinguishes it from tools like list_sketch_entities, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like inspect_feature or get_items. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 does not mention inspect_feature for detailed feature inspection, or filtering options. There is no discussion of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this listing is appropriate.

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