suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it only states that suggestions are produced. It does not disclose the notable advisor-selection behavior (the advisors parameter lists named experts/figures), nor how constraints influence the output, nor what the returned suggestion looks like.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the main action is front-loaded. It is slightly repetitive with the '场景建议' label, but the definition is compact and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description gives no insight into output format, advisor behavior, or how to choose among the sibling tools. For a 3-parameter tool with a distinctive expert-list parameter, this is inadequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents scenario and constraints; the description echoes '场景和约束条件' without adding detail. The meaningful advisors parameter is present in the schema but not addressed in the description, though the schema's enum and label at least name it.

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 a clear action – give executable solution suggestions based on a scenario and constraints – and is not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this 'suggest' tool from siblings like consult, brainstorm, or roundtable, all of which plausibly produce suggestions.

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 implies when to use it: when there is a concrete scenario and constraints requiring actionable advice. But it gives no explicit when-not-to-use conditions and does not mention any alternative tool, so an agent must infer where it fits among the sibling tools.

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