lore_get_suggestions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns top candidates from the pending queue sorted by quality score, implying a read-only operation. This is sufficient for a simple retrieval, though it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or any authorization needs.

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 concise, consisting of only two sentences plus a usage hint. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes value without any redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema (so no need to explain return values), and good schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It provides the core purpose, a usage guideline, and references the sibling tool. It does not cover edge cases or prerequisites, but for this straightforward retrieval, it is sufficient.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'min_score' parameters already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, such as noting the 'quality score' sorting. Hence, the description adds only marginal value, fitting the baseline score of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'pending link suggestions' sorted by quality score. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'lore_review_suggestion' by implying a sequential workflow, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 description explicitly tells the agent to use 'lore_review_suggestion' for acceptance or rejection, providing a clear next step and some context on when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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