Suggest service runtime

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the result is a draft to be validated, implying a non-authoritative output. However, it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits like return format or handling of invalid inputs.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a practical instruction. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and a hint at usage, but it doesn't explain the output structure or address all parameters. It is adequate but not rich, especially considering the dense sibling toolset.

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 compensate. It mentions project_root and cwd, giving them some context, but the required 'language' parameter is omitted. This leaves a notable gap for a required input.

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 function: 'Suggest schema-shaped runtime config for a language service from project_root and cwd.' It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('runtime config'), and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like validate_service_runtime and describe_language_runtime_schema.

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?

It provides usage context by advising to 'Use the result as a draft, then validate it,' which implies a workflow and points toward validation as a next step. It doesn't explicitly name the validation tool but gives clear guidance on when to use the suggestion.

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