get_feature_set

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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly noting the result includes 'all features and their configuration.' This clarifies the scope of the returned data. No contradictions exist with annotations, and no extra safety warnings are needed given the read-only nature.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key scope ('including all features and their configuration'). No filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple getter with one parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema. The description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what data is included (features and configuration). Given the output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, and the parameter description ('UUID of the feature set') is clear. The description's mention of 'specific feature set' reinforces the need for an ID but does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific feature set including all features and their configuration.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('feature set'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_feature_sets (which lists many) and search_features (which searches) by emphasizing 'specific' and 'detailed information'.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The description indicates you use this when you need detailed info on a specific feature set, but it does not mention when to prefer alternatives (e.g., list_feature_sets for discovery, search_features for filtering). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the simple getter nature makes the use case reasonably apparent.

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