umlforge_suggest

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's implication of non-destructive recommendation aligns. However, openWorldHint=true is not addressed, leaving ambiguity about potential side effects. The description adds detail about the output (pre-filled parameters, explanation) beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use cases, examples) and is front-loaded with the key message. Although it is relatively long, each sentence adds value for understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, clear annotations, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what to provide, and what the response will contain. There are no apparent gaps.

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 has only one parameter (task_description) with no description (0% coverage). The tool description provides extensive guidance on what to include in this parameter, with examples and details on how context improves results, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 helps identify the right tool and returns a pre-filled tool call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the suggestion entry point, with the opening line 'START HERE if you are unsure which tool to use.'

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 explicitly lists when to use this tool (e.g., unsure which of the 12 tools, describe a goal) and provides concrete examples. It also mentions the response will include an explanation and an alternative, guiding the agent effectively.

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