Get Baseline Status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the meaning of baseline levels (high, low, false) and the returned data (browser support versions, related BCD features, spec links), providing valuable behavioral context beyond the 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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then explains baseline levels, followed by Args, Returns, and Examples. It is concise yet comprehensive without 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists return values (Baseline status, browser support, etc.). It fully addresses the tool's functionality given its simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for alternative queries.

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 description adds value by explaining feature identifier format (kebab-case), detailing response_format options with default, and providing concrete examples that clarify parameter usage beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 gets Baseline status for a web platform feature from W3C WebDX web-features data. It distinguishes from siblings like compat_check and compat_list_baseline by focusing specifically on a single feature's baseline level.

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 provides examples and explains the output format, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like compat_check or compat_list_baseline. However, the examples give clear usage context.

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