suggest_outfit

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and falls short. It doesn't say whether the suggestion draws from the user's actual wardrobe (which would make list_items or unworn_report relevant), whether the call is read-only, whether it's deterministic, or whether repeated calls give varied results.

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?

Three short lines, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the input hints following. Nothing in it could be removed without losing information.

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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the input story is mostly covered. But for a tool with no annotations sitting alongside inventory-mutating siblings, the description should clarify that it recommends rather than records or reserves anything — an agent can't rule out side effects from the text alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does the most important work: it maps temp_c to Celsius, explains that weather_words accepts phrases like 'cool and rainy', and allows either or both. It also effectively supplies the missing enum for occasion. It doesn't mention that all three parameters are optional or that occasion defaults to 'casual', which the schema carries silently.

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 ("Suggest one outfit") scoped to today's weather and occasion, so its function is immediately clear. It does not name the closest sibling (packing_list) or otherwise differentiate itself from the other wardrobe tools, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives operational guidance on how to supply weather input (Celsius, descriptive words, or both) and enumerates valid occasions, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus packing_list or the item-inspection tools, and it doesn't state what happens when no arguments are given.

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