list_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. 'List' implies a read operation with no side effects, and the description does not contradict that. However, it does not explicitly state nondestructive behavior or permissions needed, which is acceptable for a simple listing tool.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, and the second lists return fields. Every word is informative; there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and output adequately. It does not explain when to use the tool, but for a simple listing that is likely self-explanatory. Minor gap in contextual guidance.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaning by detailing the return fields (feature, tier, requires_auth, tool_count, tools), which helps the agent understand the output.

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 tool lists every registered MCP-Dubai feature with tool count and tier. The verb 'list' and resource 'every registered feature' provide a specific, unambiguous purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are domain-specific.

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 implies usage for obtaining an overview of all features. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but given the unique nature of this metadata listing tool among siblings, the context is clear.

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