suggest_multistage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it declares a non-mutating contract ('never writes a file'), describes what is preserved from the original (base image version, workdir, ports, CMD/ENTRYPOINT), and says it explains what moves to the build stage. It omits failure behavior for already-multi-stage or unrecognized files.

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, front-loaded with the output contract, then capability, then value. Every sentence carries information; the ecosystem list is slightly padded but genuinely useful for deciding applicability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a one-parameter read-only tool the description covers scope, output form, and preserved settings; only edge-case behavior and the exact meaning of 'path' are missing.

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 single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should say it points to the Dockerfile to analyze. 'A single-stage Dockerfile' only weakly implies that; an agent could plausibly pass a directory path instead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Propose a multi-stage rewrite of a single-stage Dockerfile') and pins down the output form ('as TEXT, never writes a file'). It does not name a sibling to contrast with, so the agent must infer the boundary against fix_preview or lint_dockerfile on its own.

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 input constraint ('single-stage Dockerfile') implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisite statement (e.g. file must exist and be readable), and no named alternative for already-multi-stage or non-Python/Node/Go/Rust files.

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