catia_list_features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the extra per-feature call and potential recompute cost, which goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about performance implications. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 action and purpose, then a concise note on error-checking cost. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: what it lists, order, error option, and cost. It does not describe the return format, but that is not strictly necessary for a list operation, and the annotations cover safety. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description (body defaults to main body; include_errors cost). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not repeat or enhance the parameter details.

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 it lists features of a body in creation order, with an optional error-reporting feature. It explicitly mentions the use case of finding the feature blocking an update, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like catia_list_bodies or catia_list_faces. The verb 'List' and resource 'features of a body' are specific and 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?

It provides a clear intended use case ('this is how you find the feature blocking an update') and notes the cost behavior on releases without update-status property. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when it is appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions but gives actionable context.

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