suggest_flyte_plugin_for

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool prefers V2-native entries over V1 duplicates, which is helpful. However, it does not describe other behaviors such as response format, error handling, or rate limits. The presence of an output schema may mitigate this but is not explicit.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and a key behavioral preference. It is front-loaded and efficient, with 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 the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and a behavioral note, but lacks details on how results are presented, what happens with no matches, or how interpret the output beyond the schema. The presence of the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but more context on search behavior would be beneficial.

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 description adds meaning to the 'need' parameter by providing examples, clarifying it expects natural-language input. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter's purpose or that it controls the number of suggestions. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should cover both parameters but only partially does.

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: to suggest plugins given a natural-language need, with examples ('run Spark', 'connect Snowflake'). It also mentions a preference for V2-native entries, which adds specificity. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_flyte_plugins' and 'get_flyte_plugin'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies use when a natural-language need arises. No when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings is given, which is insufficient for an AI agent to make informed decisions.

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