suggest_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the ranking mechanism ('scores entries by term overlap and returns ranked suggestions'), which tells the agent results are heuristic rather than exhaustive. It stops short of disclosing pagination behavior, auth requirements, or what happens on a no-match task, so it's strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage routing, then a bulleted parameter reference. The three example tasks earn their space by illustrating the expected natural-language input format. No redundant or filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps: purpose, selection criteria, alternatives, and all three parameters with their values and defaults. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, documenting all three parameters plus details the schema omits: the candidate values for 'type' ("skill", "agent", "command", "hook") and the default of 5 for 'limit'. The task parameter's expected shape is shown via the sample intents.

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 (suggest) and resource (registry entries) scoped to natural language task descriptions, and explicitly distinguishes itself from two named siblings, get_entry and search_entries. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns (ranked suggestions) versus the exact-match alternatives.

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 states the prerequisite condition ('when you do NOT have a specific artefact name — only a task or intent description') and names the two alternatives with the condition that selects each: get_entry for exact plugin+type+name, search_entries for exact keyword/partial matching. Concrete example tasks reinforce the intended input style.

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