add_use_case

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses write location and casing rules, that later cases MERGE into existing domain modules, that refactor mode leaves app.module alone, and that class-name reconciliation is manual under infraStyle=project. It says nothing about what the tool returns or reports after generation, and overwrite semantics live only in the 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?

A single dense paragraph mixing purpose, mode rules, adapter rules, merge behavior, and manual reconciliation, with ALL-CAPS fragments instead of headings or bullets. Every fact is relevant, but nothing is grouped, and several clauses (http adapter needs no DB, default adapterType) duplicate schema text the agent already sees.

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 24-parameter generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical decision points and side effects an agent needs before calling: mode semantics, adapter variants, merge behavior, and infra reconciliation caveats. Missing pieces are the return payload and whether inspect_project should run first.

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 baseline is 3. The description only re-states a handful of parameters (adapterType modes, nombreSp, apiExterna, infraStyle/infraRoot, motor/conexion defaults) and adds little beyond those schema texts, notably the merge effect of adding a case to an existing domain.

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?

First sentence gives a specific verb and artifact list (hexagonal vertical slice with port, service, adapter, controller, DTOs, entities, error catalogs, modules) written to src/<dominio>/. The scope is unmistakable. It never contrasts itself with generate_from_spec or scaffold_service, so an agent must infer which generator to pick when both could apply.

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?

Rich conditional guidance: greenfield vs refactor (refactor never touches app.module), adapterType selection with prerequisites (sp requires nombreSp, http requires apiExterna/rutaApi and no DB), infraStyle=project with infraRoot for existing projects, and multi-case merge semantics. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the sibling generate_from_spec, which is the one routing decision left implicit.

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