suggest_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (find, assemble) without detailing any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform an agent of potential side effects or constraints.

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 that perfectly encapsulates the tool's action and purpose with no extraneous words. Every element earns its place.

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 tool with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's goal. It covers the key value proposition. However, it does not mention any dependencies (e.g., requiring indexed code) or limitations, which could affect agent decision-making. A slightly more complete description would include such context.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description ('Find undocumented functions and assemble context') aligns with the parameters' scoping role, but it does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 states it finds undocumented functions and assembles context for writing docs, with a specific verb and resource. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools that focus on code analysis (e.g., get_complexity, detect_clones), making it easy for an agent to select this tool for documentation tasks.

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 implies usage for documentation writing by mentioning 'assemble context for writing docs.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance.

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