List use cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that heuristic mode is deterministic, claude mode delegates to Claude and requires ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, and claude mode produces preconditions, flows, restrictions, and feature assessments. It stops short of mentioning caching/refresh behavior or external API side effects.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose before diving into mode details. It earns its place, though the single dense sentence could be slightly clearer if broken into two sentences or bullets.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple mode-dependent behaviors, the description leaves gaps: it does not mention the default mode, whether a prior scan is required, how refresh affects caching, or the shape of the returned use cases. The provided info is enough for basic heuristic use but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description adds real semantics for the mode parameter, explaining what each enum value does. The schema already documents root, actor, format, and refresh, but the feature parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and no default mode is specified.

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 resource ('business use cases') and its source ('endpoints + roles'), which is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings. Though the verb 'list' appears only in the title, the meaning is clear and the two modes are explained.

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 gives practical mode-selection guidance: heuristic is instant and deterministic, while claude merges/renames into richer use cases and requires an API key. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like extract_endpoints or explain_feature.

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