catalog_heuristics

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it clearly signals a read-only enumeration operation rather than a mutation. It names the exact categories the agent can expect, which is meaningful context; output formatting details are reasonably delegated to the existing output schema.

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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource before packing the taxonomy into parentheses. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the empty input schema.

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?

For a zero-parameter catalog operation with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it tells an agent what the tool does and what content domains are covered. The only real gap is the lack of explicit routing versus the sibling catalog_techniques tool, which is a minor completeness issue.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameters whose meaning the description must clarify. The parenthetical heuristic categories add useful context about what the tool will return, even though no invocation arguments are needed.

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 states a specific action ('List all') on a clearly defined resource ('test heuristics') and enumerates the heuristic families included (SFDPOT, FEW HICCUPPS, RCRCRC, quality criteria catalog, bug heuristics, test tours). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling catalog_techniques.

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 this is the go-to tool when an agent needs the full catalog of test heuristics, and the parenthetical examples clarify scope. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over catalog_techniques, generate_test_cases, or the other sibling tools, and it offers no exclusion criteria.

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