feature_uses

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: without the numeric 'blanks' (CHA modifier or paladin level), it returns the formula rather than a number; the 'closed set' limits valid features; and tables are explicitly out of scope.

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?

Three sentences, no waste, but 'Formula-blanks discipline' is jargon. Still, the information is dense and front-loaded, with the core scope and special behavior stated early.

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 8 parameters, a nested policy schema, and no annotations, the description is too lean. It explains the core computation but leaves the policy/table parameters unexplained; 'Tables are out of scope' is a terse exclusion that doesn't clarify whether table_policy/table_decision are ignored or rejected. The presence of an output schema mitigates some, but not enough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It connects divine-sense to CHA modifier and lay-on-hands to paladin level, explaining two parameters. However, it doesn't clarify the purpose of the remaining six parameters (request_id, table_policy, asserted_facts, policy_context, table_decision), leaving ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool's domain: use-count formulas for divine-sense and lay-on-hands, with arithmetic expressions. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate', the reference to 'verdict returns' makes the function clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like attack_modifiers by focusing on class feature uses.

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?

Usage is implied: use when a feature use-count is needed for the two listed features. It explicitly states 'Tables are out of scope', excluding table-related queries, but doesn't name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond that.

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