suggest_next_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must shoulder the burden of disclosing behavior. It says the tool 'analyzes' and 'returns recommendations', implying a read-only advisory role, and enumerates the kinds of recommendations. However, it does not explicitly state that the tree is not modified or describe the shape/ordering of the returned recommendations.

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 wordy but structured, front-loading the core usage condition. It repeats the same idea multiple times: being 'unsure what to do next' is echoed in 'tree feels stuck' and 'need guidance on the best next step', making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 description gives a strong sense of when to call the tool and what general categories of recommendations to expect, which is adequate for a simple 3-parameter tool. Yet the lack of an output schema means the agent is not told the exact recommendation payload fields, priorities, or how to interpret conflicting suggestions, leaving some gap.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra detail about treeId, focusThoughtId, or maxSuggestions beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific purpose: analyze the current Tree of Thoughts state and return prioritized actionable recommendations. It distinguishes itself from execution tools by listing recommendation categories (generate children, evaluate thoughts, prune branches, etc.), though it never references a sibling by name.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: 'when you are unsure what to do next', 'when the tree feels stuck, has many pending items, or you need guidance on the best next step'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the conditions are specific enough for an agent to decide.

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