suggest_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal output behavior: features are arranged by priority and include complexity estimates and tech requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, that existing_features are excluded from suggestions, or how the output is structured beyond the priority labels.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and output. Every phrase earns its place: it names the resource, the priority framework, and the additional outputs (complexity estimates and tech requirements). No redundant or vague wording.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the main behavioral contract: what is produced and how it is organized. There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the output dimensions. It could be more complete with explicit guidance on input requirements or return format, but the essential information for a basic invocation is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents project_type with a full enum and existing_features with an explanatory description ('Features already implemented (will be excluded from suggestions)'). The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, but this is acceptable given the complete 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest features for a project'. It clearly defines the output organization by priority categories (Must-Have, Should-Have, Could-Have, Innovative), and distinguishes this from siblings like generate_roadmap or analyze_project. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as smart_recommend, generate_roadmap, or full_analysis. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues beyond the generic 'for a project', leaving the AI agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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