jumpcloud_query_suggestion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only and has low risk, which is valuable, but it does not describe the output format, possible errors, or any internal behavior beyond 'planning helper'. The safety profile is clear, but depth is limited.

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 two sentences that front-load the key purpose ('Read-only planning helper') and then list specific use cases. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague 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?

Despite a clear purpose, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 undocumented optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how to structure a query, what the response will look like, or how it relates to sibling tools in a practical workflow. The description is too terse to fully enable correct usage.

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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter names or provide hints about their meaning. The agent is left with no guidance on how to fill 'path', 'domain', 'intent', 'method', or 'includeToolSchemas'. This is a major gap.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only planning helper with specific purposes: choosing safe tool order, discovering operations, and retrieving schema details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing planning rather than execution, though it does not fully describe the exact input/output mechanism.

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 provides explicit use cases (planning, discovering operations, retrieving schemas) and an explicit when-not-to-use (direct mutations). This effectively guides the agent away from using it for mutations, but it does not name alternative tools or more specific conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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