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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — never send source code or secrets, only a safe summary — but it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it persists the project summary, or what the response shape is.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The privacy constraint is buried in the tail of the second sentence where it could be foregrounded, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is only partly sufficient — it covers the main intent and payload but omits two parameters and any notion of the returned recommendation list. Adequate, not complete.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains goal, frameworks, dependencies and files (as "notable file names" rather than contents, a useful clarification), but leaves "problems" and "lang" entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

"Recommend skills, MCP servers and CLI tools for a project" names a specific verb and enumerates the exact resources returned, so an agent knows what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_entries or plan_install, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 the usage context (project-scoped recommendation from a summary) and gives input guidance on what to send, but never states when to choose this over search_entries or get_entry, nor any exclusion beyond the privacy rule. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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