suggest_call_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates the tool is non-destructive (suggests, not executes), but does not disclose how suggestions are generated, the expected format, or any permissions needed. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It is concise with no wordiness, though it could be structured slightly better to separate the general purpose from the example.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, how to use the results, or prerequisite steps (e.g., calling detect_openapi first). This leaves the agent without enough information to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond an example goal, not explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., targetMethod and targetPath together, maxDepth semantics). The schema descriptions are sufficient but the description does not enhance them.

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 tool's purpose: 'Suggest a likely API call sequence for reaching a target endpoint or accomplishing a goal'. It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('call sequence'), and the example distinguishes it from siblings that execute calls (call_endpoint) or provide details (get_endpoint_details).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: planning a sequence to reach a target or accomplish a goal, with an example ('creating prerequisites'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or reference alternatives like find_related_endpoints, which slightly limits guidance.

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