suggest_command

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, yet it only says a command is 'suggested.' It does not state whether anything is executed, whether the suggestion is advisory only, where the suggestion comes from (model vs. template library), or what form the result takes. For a tool sitting alongside execute_command, this omission matters.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 tool is structurally simple (one string parameter, fully documented, no nested objects), so a short description is defensible. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves unresolved whether the returned suggestion is executed, how it is returned, and what the agent should do with it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("The user's request or task description"), so the schema already documents its meaning. The description restates the same idea ("based on the user's request") without adding format, length, or phrasing guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ("suggests a terminal command") and adds the basis for the suggestion ("based on the user's request"), which distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings by name alone. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with preview_command or execute_command, so differentiation is left to the agent's inference.

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 guidance on when to use this versus preview_command or execute_command, nor whether the suggestion should be previewed/confirmed before running. The agent must infer that this generates rather than runs a command.

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