get_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'ordered provenance' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., whether it includes import history, source lineage, or computational steps), nor does it describe the output format, error handling, or performance implications. For a retrieval tool with an output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a gap.

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 of 11 words, front-loading the primary action and the key detail ('full, including ordered provenance'). It is concise and to the point with no 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?

The tool has a simple single-parameter input and an output schema (though not provided here), so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given that annotations are absent and the description lacks context on what 'ordered provenance' means or when to use this tool, it is not fully complete. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 0% (the schema only provides the type 'string' with no description for feature_id). The description does not explain what feature_id represents (e.g., an ID format, whether it is a UUID or numeric, or how to obtain it). This is a deficiency because the parameter is required and undocumented. A 3 is given because at least it is clear that the parameter is the identifier, but more detail is needed.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('feature'), and adds a specific detail ('in full, including its ordered provenance'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_features. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the detail about full detail vs. list is enough to infer the difference.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that it is for retrieving a single feature's full detail (as opposed to list_features), but does not provide explicit conditions or mention alternatives like get_layer or list_sources. An agent might not know if this is the right tool for a given task without additional context.

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