suggest_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Suggest' implies a read-only generative operation, but nothing states whether output is deterministic, how many keywords come back beyond the 'limit' param, whether mood/genre meaningfully change results, or any latency/cost characteristics.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the produced artifact. It is efficient, though brevity is achieved partly by omission rather than by precision.

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?

A four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs the description to explain inputs and return shape. Instead it gives one line, leaving the agent without enough to call it confidently or to know what the returned keywords look like.

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% and there are four parameters, so the description must compensate — it does not. It names vibe, genre and mood (restating schema property names) but adds no format, example, or constraint semantics, and it omits the 'limit' parameter entirely.

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 ('Suggest') and resource ('vibe/DNA keywords') plus the inputs that shape the suggestion, so an agent can tell what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from similarly-themed siblings such as map_music_dna or build_style_field, which also operate on vibe/DNA concepts.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of any alternative. With five overlapping siblings in the keyword/DNA/style space, the agent gets no signal about which tool to pick for which intent.

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