forcepoint_query_suggestion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key safety trait. It also mentions 'safety checks' as part of its suggestions, indicating a consultative role. It doesn't discuss auth, rate limits, or output format, but for a read-only planning tool, this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Suggest Forcepoint MCP tool sequences...'), followed by purpose and safety. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the tool's purpose is clear, the description lacks details about the output structure (since there is no output schema) and how parameters like 'path' and 'method' are used. It sufficiently covers the high-level intent but leaves specifics to inference, which is acceptable for a planning tool but not fully complete.

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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only hints at 'workflow intent' (intent) and 'tool schemas' (includeToolSchemas), but omits explanation for 'path,' 'method,' 'operationType,' and 'includeExamples.' The enum for operationType is visible in schema, but its meaning is not elaborated. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Suggest Forcepoint MCP tool sequences, safety checks, and rich tool schemas for a workflow intent.' This is a specific verb (suggest) and resource (tool sequences/schemas), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform actual operations by positioning itself as a planning/discovery aid.

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 provides clear context for use: 'use for schema discovery and planning.' The read-only hint implies this is for exploration before executing actions. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, the sibling tool list and the description make it evident that this is a meta-tool for workflow design, not execution.

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