get_feature

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

Without annotations, the description adds transparency by noting the required scope and API source. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (though get is read-only), error behavior, or rate limits, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by the required scope. It contains no filler words and is optimally front-loaded.

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 simple get operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and authorization. However, it lacks details on return value format or typical usage context, which would aid an agent in understanding what to expect.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for both required parameters ('projectKey' and 'featureKey'). The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and the resource 'a feature by key within a project', making its purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_features' (listing) and 'get_feature_flag' (different entity) without explicit contrast.

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 specifies a required OAuth scope, which is helpful for authorization context. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_features' or 'get_feature_project'), nor any exclusion conditions.

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