stl_gtfs_features

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

The annotations clearly indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description is consistent with those annotations. No hidden side effects or state changes are described, and none are implied.

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 concise and free of extraneous content, listing relevant feature examples in a compact way. It is slightly awkward as a noun phrase rather than a clear imperative sentence, but overall it is efficient and readable.

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?

The description gives the core purpose and useful examples, but it omits any explanation of the snapshot parameter and does not describe the output format. An output schema is indicated as present, which mitigates some incompleteness, but the textual description alone is only moderately complete.

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 only parameter, 'snapshot', is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The parameter name is suggestive but not explanatory, and no guidance is provided about accepted values, format, or how it affects the returned feature list.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reporting which GTFS features a feed provides, with concrete examples of feature badges such as route colors, shapes, and fares. It is reasonably distinct from sibling GTFS tools, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-oriented statement.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or examples of appropriate usage. It relies on the reader to infer when feature-level GTFS capabilities are needed.

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