find_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'infer all files relevant' without explaining the inference mechanism, constraints (e.g., does it only scan local files? use a database?), or whether it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or limitations.

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 concise sentence that includes examples. It is front-loaded with the verb-object structure. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing the purpose first).

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return format or how results are presented, which would help an agent use the output effectively.

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% (the single parameter feature_name has a description). The description adds example values but does not provide additional semantic nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 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 that the tool infers all files relevant to a named Lampa feature, with concrete examples (player, catalog, etc.). It distinguishes from generic file-finding tools by specifying 'Lampa feature', but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_files.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_files, find_api_calls, etc.). The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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