recommend_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states that the result is a ranked list with matched terms, installation status, tool prefix, and head-to-head comparisons including strengths, choice criteria, and limits. It also clarifies that the result is a suggestion rather than a binding rule.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds examples, usage timing, return behavior, and fallback guidance. It is somewhat long, but the details are relevant and structured rather than redundant.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still provides enough context about the returned recommendation, ranking, installation status, and comparison details. It also covers when to call the tool and what to do when its suggestion cannot be followed, making it complete for an agent.

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 for the single required 'task' parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this by giving concrete examples of task domains and their matched applications, implying that the parameter is a free-text engineering task description, though it could more explicitly define the expected format.

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 phrase, 'Suggest which application (and tool family) fits an engineering task best,' and immediately grounds it with domain-to-application examples such as antennas -> HFSS and PCB -> Altium. This makes the tool's function distinct without needing to inspect schemas or sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this before choosing tools for a task,' which gives a clear usage point. It also explains a fallback when the suggested application is unavailable or the user prefers another, though it does not name a sibling alternative such as compare_applications.

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