get_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool returns workflow steps and cross-project mappings, supports an optional health check (includeHealth), and toggles between compact and full summaries (verbose). It does not mention error handling or auth, but the disclosed behaviors cover the main usage patterns.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds necessary context (use case and parameter guidance). There is no fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'full details' and 'compact summary' but does not specify the structure or content of the response (e.g., fields, format). Given the tool's moderate complexity and missing output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely restating the effect of verbose and includeHealth. It does not clarify parameter syntax or edge cases, but the schema already handles the basics, earning a baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'full details of a feature' and adds scope 'all workflow steps with cross-project mappings'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_context or scan_project, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states 'Use this to understand how a feature works end-to-end before testing or coding', providing a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is sufficient for most cases.

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