suggest_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a generation behavior but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires access to project data, what side effects exist, or what failure modes may occur. 'Generate' is not enough to establish safety or behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the scope and clearly states the output and ordering, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple with one required parameter and no output schema, and the description gives the basic input-output relationship. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits return format details, side-effect expectations, and sibling differentiation, leaving notable gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter is clearly described as 'Project directory name'. The description adds only the phrase 'for a project', which mirrors the schema rather than enriching it, so it earns the baseline score without additional semantic value.

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 clear action ('generate'), a resource ('for a project'), and a specific output property ('concrete monetization steps in priority order'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like revenue_scan or find_opportunities, so sibling distinction is implicit rather than stated.

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 guidance is given on when to use suggest_actions versus the related sibling tools such as revenue_scan or find_opportunities. The phrase 'for a project' gives minimal context but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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