get_co_edit_suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it uses historical patterns, but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, or required permissions. The description is too brief to cover key behavioral aspects.

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, which is efficient. However, it could be improved by briefly clarifying parameters or output without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded but lacks structure.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description should at least mention what the output contains (e.g., list of file paths) and how the limit parameter behaves. It is too sparse to be considered complete.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for the two parameters 'file_path' and 'limit'. It does not clarify that file_path is the input file path or that limit controls the number of suggestions. The description offers no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 returns files commonly edited alongside a given file based on historical patterns. It distinguishes from siblings like export_claude_md or find_contradictions, making its purpose evident. However, it could be slightly more specific about the nature of 'commonly edited' patterns.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or any preconditions. Sibling tools like get_related_bugs or get_health_report may overlap in usage context but no differentiation is provided.

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