suggest_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Suggests' implies nothing is executed, which is a useful signal, but it doesn't state whether the result is a command string, whether it validates the command, whether working_directory changes output semantics, or any side effects. That is thin for a tool whose safety profile is undeclared.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than tight—there is room for one more clause on output or usage without bloat.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should clarify what a 'suggestion' looks like and how it differs from preview_command's output. With only one sentence, an agent cannot tell whether the response is a command string, a list of alternatives, or an explanation.

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%, so both query and working_directory are already documented, including the context-aware git/Swift/Node behavior. The description adds nothing beyond echoing the query parameter, so the baseline 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?

Clear verb ('Suggests') and resource ('a terminal command') plus the input basis ('based on the user's request'), so the agent knows this is a suggestion generator rather than an executor. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like preview_command, execute_command, or check_interactive, which an agent must disambiguate by itself.

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?

No statement of when to use this instead of execute_command or preview_command, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that 'suggest' is the advisory, non-executing path from the single verb alone.

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