Enterprise feature catalog (module 10)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that statuses are honestly reported as implemented or scaffolded, and 'List' implies a read-only operation; however, it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, output format, or any other behavioral caveats.

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, front-loaded sentence contains the action verb, target resource, count, and the two relevant output dimensions. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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-argument listing tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential return content: 20 features, their statuses, and their hosting tool. It could add a note on output format or sibling differentiation, but the core selection and invocation context is present.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no invented parameter details, leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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 names a concrete verb ('List'), a specific resource ('the 20 enterprise features'), and the exact data reported ('implemented/scaffolded status' and 'hosting tool'). This clearly distinguishes it as the feature-catalog tool among the many jev_* siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling tools are named. The title implies it is a catalog, but the description does not tell an agent when to prefer this over tools like jev_audit or jev_backend_info.

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