recommend_init_app_flags

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool derives supported flags and may surface clarification questions, indicating a non-destructive analysis/computation operation. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, determinism, or how ambiguity is handled, but the core behavior is visible.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the workflow position is front-loaded. It communicates the essential purpose without wasting tokens.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values do not need elaboration, and there is only one parameter. However, the description lacks pipeline context (what the first step is and how this output feeds build_init_app_command), and the requirement semantics are left vague.

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%, so the description must explain the 'requirements' parameter. It only equates it with a 'user query,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name; it does not describe expected string format, level of detail, or how the query should be constructed.

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 names a specific verb ('derive') and outputs ('supported init-app flags and clarification questions') from a 'user query', making the tool's function identifiable. It also signals a workflow stage ('Second step'), which helps distinguish it from build_init_app_command, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 only usage guidance is 'Second step,' which implies this belongs in a broader pipeline and gives some sense of when to call it. It does not state when to prefer this over get_init_app_command_metadata, list_project_blueprints, or build_init_app_command, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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