Create a structured feature development plan from a feature name and capability list, generated from the Nstok-feature-template to scaffold new features consistently.
Generate a structured feature development plan scaffolded from Nstok-feature-template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureName | Yes | Feature name (e.g. "sales-report", "loyalty-points") | |
| capabilities | Yes | List of capabilities provided by this new feature |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether files are written to disk, where the plan is stored or returned, whether the template 'Nstok-feature-template' must exist, or whether the operation is reversible. The reference to an unexplained template name adds no usable context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It loses a point only because the template identifier is opaque jargon that consumes words without informing the agent.
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 tool that produces a plan artifact with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the generated plan contains, where it goes, and what to do next. An agent cannot predict the result or the side effects from this definition.
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 100% with only 2 simple string/array parameters, so the schema already explains featureName and capabilities fully. The description adds no format, naming-convention, or capability-granularity guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (structured feature development plan) and names the source template, so the agent knows what artifact it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like create_app_plan or clone_feature_template, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this belongs to the planning phase rather than the implementation phase covered by create_feature or add_feature_to_app.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.