get_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the toggle between project and workspace scope based on project_id. It also specifies the return types (ProjectFeature vs WorkspaceFeature). It does not mention error handling or explicitly state that it is read-only, but for a getter this is mostly implicit, justifying a 4 rather than a 5.

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 perfectly sized: a one-line summary, one conditional explanation, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important info is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

With only one optional parameter, no annotations, and an output schema available, this description is complete. It fully explains the conditional behavior and the corresponding return types, leaving details of the return structure to the output schema. Nothing meaningful 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so fully by explaining 'project_id: UUID of the project. Omit for workspace features,' giving type, meaning, and usage in one line. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Get feature flags,' a clear verb+resource. It then explains the conditional scope: returns project features if project_id is provided, otherwise workspace features. This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like update_project_features and update_workspace_features, which are write operations.

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 clearly states when to include project_id (to get project features) and when to omit it (to get workspace features), which is the primary usage decision. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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