suggest_connections

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

The description states it is read-only and never creates connections, which is critical. It also mentions returning up to 5 candidates from the same domain. However, it does not detail the exact matching algorithm or output format, but given no annotations, the description covers the main safety and behavior aspects.

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?

Three sentences: first describes the action, second provides usage context, third clarifies read-only nature. No redundant information, front-loaded, and each sentence adds value.

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, the description states it returns 'up to 5 candidate connections' but does not specify the structure (e.g., IDs or full memory objects). However, for a suggestion tool intended as a precursor to connect, this is likely sufficient. Completeness is high with clear usage guidance.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (id, limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds contextual meaning by clarifying that candidates are from the same domain and that limit defaults to 5, which goes beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns candidate connections based on overlap in labels, descriptions, or tags, given a memory ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' (which creates connections) and 'search' (which searches memories) by specifying it suggests connections from the same domain.

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 advises to use this tool 'after filing a memory to discover likely connections before calling connect.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with an alternative (connect) named.

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