suggest_library_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that only active tools are considered and that relevance/pragmatism is part of the selection behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how ranking works, or what role context plays in the selection process.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb, resource, and key selection criteria. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

With zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves important input semantics unresolved, such as the distinction between 'context' and 'task' and the meaning of 'limit'. It also provides no differentiation from sibling search/list tools. The existence of an output schema helps with return understanding, but the input side is still under-specified.

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%, so the schema offers no parameter explanations. The description only loosely maps 'current work' to the required 'context' parameter, while 'task' and 'limit' are left entirely unexplained. An agent has to guess that 'limit' caps the number of suggestions and what 'task' adds beyond 'context'.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Find', and identifies a concrete resource: active library tools. It adds selection criteria ('pragmatic and relevant to the current work') that distinguish it from simple listing or searching. 'Pragmatic' is somewhat subjective, but the core purpose is still clear.

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 phrase 'relevant to the current work' implies this is a context-driven recommendation tool, and 'active' implies inactive tools should be excluded. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_library_tools or search_tool_library, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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