suggest_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only — it never creates connections', which is a crucial behavioral trait. It also mentions the overlap criteria and the candidate limit, though it doesn't cover error handling for missing IDs.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action and criteria, the second provides usage guidance and a crucial read-only note. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 read-only suggestion tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral constraints, and criteria. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it, though it could mention what happens if no candidates are found.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: it restricts candidates to 'from the same domain', which is not in the schema. It also reinforces the default limit of 5. This adds value beyond the schema definitions.

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 returns candidate connections for a given memory ID from the same domain based on overlapping labels, descriptions, or tags. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' (which creates connections) and 'disconnect'.

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 using this tool after filing a memory to discover likely connections before calling 'connect', providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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