find_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only adds 'reusable' and 'NSTOK ecosystem' context. It doesn't state whether results are ranked, paginated, cached, or what the return shape looks like — important for a discovery 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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The capability-matching scope is immediately clear.

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?

Adequate for a 2-param, 0-required discovery tool with no output schema, but leaves gaps: no indication of result format, ranking, or ecosystem scope boundaries. An agent can call it, but can't predict its output.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description reiterates the matching concept but adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Discover reusable business features from the NSTOK ecosystem'), giving concrete examples of feature names. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like find_existing_patterns or find_ui_components, which could appear to serve similar discovery purposes.

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 ('matching capabilities or keywords') but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer that this searches features vs. other find_* tools from the name alone.

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