smart_recommend

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It substantively discloses the ranking methodology and explicit return components, including rank, confidence score, sensitivity analysis, and breakdown. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but the 'Returns' phrasing implies a read-only analytical operation.

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 one dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no significant filler beyond the word 'Advanced'. Every phrase contributes method or output detail, making it appropriately concise.

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 6-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema or annotations, the description is useful but incomplete. It explains outputs but not when to use it versus siblings, how to interpret sensitivity/confidence, or how parameters map to the algorithms. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the schema carries most of the semantic load. The description adds conceptual meaning by tying AHP weighting to priorities and Constraint Satisfaction to min_scores, but it never names individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies an advanced tech-recommendation tool with specific algorithms (TOPSIS, AHP, Constraint Satisfaction) and outputs (ranked alternatives, confidence, sensitivity, breakdown). It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing advanced multi-criteria ranking, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'recommends'.

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 guidance is given on when to choose smart_recommend over recommend_stack, compare_tech, or recommend_dual_stack. The 'Advanced' wording and algorithm names imply a complex multi-criteria use case, but exclusions and alternative conditions are absent.

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