Implementation Suggestion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the tool's output format (Summary, Reasoning, Details), its reliance on reference repos, and the auto-selection behavior when repos is omitted. It does not detail any side effects or edge cases, but for a primarily read-oriented suggestion tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second defines output format, and the remaining lines clarify workflow and default behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure (Summary, Reasoning, Details) and default repo behavior. It could mention error handling or more details on what 'implementation suggestion' entails, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters clearly described in the schema. The description adds the extra detail that omitted repos auto-selects from REFERENCE_REPOS, a slight enhancement over the schema's explicit repo list, but it does not substantially expand parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Get an implementation suggestion') and a defined resource ('combining Commonware research knowledge and actual code from reference repos'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_implementation tool by describing the two-stage flow, which positions suggestion as the first stage.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use the tool ('Ask any implementation question') and how it fits in the broader workflow ('stage 1 is `suggestion` only; stage 2 (`search_implementation`) is user-triggered in the same session'). This gives clear usage context and names the alternative tool.

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