copilot_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'suggestions and completions' but fails to detail critical aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool interacting with an external AI service.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of interacting with GitHub Copilot, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable tool invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips. However, since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get code suggestions and completions from GitHub Copilot', specifying the action ('Get') and resource ('code suggestions and completions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like copilot_chat, copilot_explain, and copilot_review by focusing on generation rather than conversation, explanation, or review, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copilot_chat or copilot_explain. It lacks context about specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and purpose alone.

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