haops_list_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists returned fields but omits important behavior such as pagination (page and limit parameters), default sorting, total count, or error handling. This lack of information about how the tool behaves beyond the basic listing is a gap.

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—two sentences that cover the core action, optional filters, and return value. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (feature ID, title, status, priority, owner, module, issue count). However, it misses contextual details like pagination behavior, ordering, and how the filters interact. With many sibling list tools, it is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by mentioning the moduleId filter explicitly and listing return fields, but it does not provide additional semantic context for parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 features) and the resource (HAOps project) with optional filters. It also specifies the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like haops_list_issues or haops_list_modules, though the focus on features is clear.

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 mentions optional filters and specifically calls out filtering by moduleId, which helps understand when to use this tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings (e.g., haops_get_feature for a single feature) or mention prerequisites.

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