advise_next_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the output is advisory and non-binding ('approval remains with the user') and that low confidence should trigger more evidence, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It says nothing about whether state is mutated, permission requirements, or what is actually returned.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by input guidance and the approval caveat. No sentence is filler.

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?

Hmm, this is not 5. For a 4-required-param tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about return values and the relationship to route_next_stage. It covers purpose, trigger and the approval boundary but leaves key call-time details to the schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for three of four parameters: actions are '2-4 explicit, bounded development actions', and 'evidence' and 'constraints' are named as required inputs. The 'situation' parameter and the format/bounds of evidence and constraints are left entirely to the schema.

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 function (advisory choice among 2-4 bounded development actions) and the triggering condition (next step uncertain), so an agent can tell what it does. It never names or contrasts the sibling route_next_stage, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives clear context for use ('when the next step is uncertain') and a heuristic for insufficient input ('low confidence calls for more evidence'). However, with a sibling tool route_next_stage present, there is no when-not guidance or explicit routing between the two, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits.

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