suggest_slug

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the slug derivation algorithm for both record types, the handling of missing years ('unknown'), the lowercase ASCII and hyphen-separated encoding, and the return payload (slug plus inputs). This goes well beyond a vague summary.

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 with a clear purpose, followed by precise algorithmic details. Every sentence contributes essential information: the rule, record-type variations, missing-year handling, character constraints, and return value. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter utility with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it derives the result, edge cases, and expected return. The reference to AGENTS.md is explained inline, so the tool is fully usable without external files. Sibling tools confirm the domain context, making the description complete enough for correct selection and 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 schema only declares an 'id' with zero description. The tool description clarifies that 'id' refers to 'the given record' and that the tool derives the slug inputs (surname, given, birthyear, etc.) from it. It does not explicitly define the id format, but the context makes it clear, and the description adds meaning to an otherwise opaque parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and names the resource ('the workspace folder-slug rule from AGENTS.md to the given record'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by being the only tool that generates slugs, and it even provides the exact rules for INDI and FAM records.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a folder slug is needed for a record, following the workspace rule. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling context (all read-oriented retrieval tools) and the concrete slug-format guidance make the use case unambiguous.

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