suggest_resource_for_tool

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 does not clarify whether this is a read-only lookup, how the suggestion is determined, what happens if no resource exists, or whether any side effects occur. 'Suggest' implies non-mutating behavior, but this 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 a single sentence with no filler, and the main idea is front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it lacks useful structure such as examples, clarifications, or relationship to sibling tools, making it more under-specified than elegantly concise.

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, no annotations, and a sparse one-sentence description, the tool is not fully specified. An agent cannot reliably know what kind of 'resource' is meant, what input format is expected, what response to anticipate, or how this differs from nearby resource-related tools.

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 only parameter, tool_name, has no schema description, and the description does not explicitly mention it. The phrase 'instead of a removed tool' weakly implies that tool_name should correspond to a removed tool's name, but the description adds no detail about accepted formats, history requirements, or how the tool name is used.

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 names a specific action ('suggest the appropriate resource') and a target context ('instead of a removed tool'), which makes the general purpose understandable. However, 'appropriate resource' is vague and does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as generate_resource_templates or list_available_resources.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no examples, and no mention of prerequisites or expected input. The context 'instead of a removed tool' hints at one use case but does not explain how to identify such tools or what to do with the suggestion.

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