suggest_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key behavioral traits: that the tool only recommends tools without executing them, returns specific structured information (tool names, descriptions, depth tiers, expert hints), and serves a planning function. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, providing usage guidance, and specifying return values. There's no wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential context: purpose, usage pattern, and return value structure. However, it could provide more detail about what 'expert analysis hints' contain or how the tool handles different file types, which would be helpful given the absence of structured output documentation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions for 'file' and 'depth'. It mentions file type detection which relates to the 'file' parameter but doesn't provide additional context about path resolution or depth tier implications.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Detect file type and return recommended REMnux analysis tools') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'run_tool' for execution. It specifies the tool's role in planning analysis strategies rather than performing analysis directly.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to plan an analysis strategy') and when to use alternatives ('then run individual tools with run_tool'). It clearly positions this as a planning/pre-analysis tool versus execution tools in the sibling set.

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