vivado_suggest_next_steps

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'suggests' operations, without mentioning side effects, read-only status, or any impact on state. The behavioral traits remain opaque.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and important details. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary explanatory content, making it minimally adequate.

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 as a context-aware suggestion tool with 4 optional parameters and a diverse set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how suggestions are generated, what output to expect (though output schema exists), or how to use the context parameters effectively.

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 parameter details. The four optional parameters (goal, last_error, session_ref, project_ref) have self-explanatory titles but no further semantics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Suggest next MCP operations from current context' is vague. It identifies the tool as a suggestion engine but does not specify what kind of operations or how context is used. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity to distinguish from siblings like vivado_help or vivado_list_skills.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The agent has no guidance on appropriate invocation context.

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