fusion_list_features

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral detail that features are listed 'in creation order,' which is not covered by annotations. However, it does not specify whether suppressed features are included or what properties are returned.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly expanded to clarify the output format without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter list tool and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what is listed and the order, but does not mention what fields the returned features contain or if there are any limitations (e.g., only active features). Additional details would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and has 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the tool's purpose.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('timeline features'), and the ordering ('in creation order'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fusion_list_bodies or fusion_list_components, which list different resources.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is straightforward, but adding a note about checking feature existence or limitations would improve clarity.

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