suggest_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is non-mutating by using 'suggests', but it does not explain any dependencies, required authorizations, or what happens with the suggestion (e.g., if it is saved or only returned). The brief phrasing leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 that is front-loaded and directly states the core purpose. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the suggested template looks like or how it is returned, and since there is no output schema, the description should have filled this gap. It also lacks explicit prerequisites beyond the implied analysis input.

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 parameter description coverage is 100%, with 'analysis' described as 'The analysis string from analyze_file_changes' and 'project_context' as 'Optional project context/guidelines'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'suggests' with the resource 'PR template' and specifies the basis as 'analysis of file changes', which distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_file_changes and update_pr_status. It is specific, actionable, and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used after analyze_file_changes by referencing 'analysis of file changes', but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives/exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool or what other tools might be more appropriate.

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