guide_next_steps

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it 'does not write files' and that it 'Read[s] the current LINZA state'. This adds context beyond the annotation by explaining the tool's role as a navigator and its non-destructive nature. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information; every word is valuable. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and result.

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?

While the description clearly states the tool's purpose and non-write behavior, it does not specify the structure or format of the output beyond 'plain language'. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more explicit about what kind of recommendations to expect (e.g., a string with bullet points, a JSON object). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 six parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents them well. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. A score of 3 is appropriate per the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Read' and resource 'current LINZA state', with the specific purpose to 'recommend the next safe onboarding/review step in plain language'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly calling itself 'the navigator for agents and users' and stating it 'does not write files', which differentiate it from tools like 'read_file' and 'search'.

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 on when to use the tool: as a navigator for agents and users to get the next safe step. It explicitly states what it does not do ('does not write files'), guiding agents away from using it for mutation. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' scenarios.

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