suggest_improvements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool operates only on local README markdown files and bases suggestions on a scoring rubric, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies the file, whether it requires prior scoring, or what the response contains beyond 'suggestions.'

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds an important scope constraint. Both sentences earn their place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the purpose and the key input constraint. However, it does not describe the output format or whether the suggestions are returned inline, written to a file, or require the file to have been scored first, leaving some ambiguity for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying that filePath must point to a local README markdown file only, which is a constraint not stated in the schema. This extra semantic helps prevent misuse with remote URLs or non-markdown files.

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 'suggest concrete README improvements' and the target resource ('a local README markdown file'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from score_readme or check_readme_links, but the improvement-focused purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer the intended use.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions 'based on the scoring rubric' and 'local README markdown file only,' but does not say when an agent should prefer suggest_improvements over score_readme or check_readme_links, nor does it describe prerequisites.

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