recommend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses side effects ('May log consultations for advisor action') and typical runtime ('<1 second'), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not cover auth requirements or potential destructive actions, leaving gaps.

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 a hint, a concise summary, a bulleted action list, and an output/side effects/runtime section. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff. It is easy to scan and understand.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main actions, side effects, and runtime. It could mention the output format or provide more details on how each action uses parameters, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Overall adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description reinforces the action parameter by listing valid values, but adds little beyond the schema. It does not introduce any new parameter semantics or examples. Baseline 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 tool's function: 'Unified recommendation tool consolidating model selection, workflow mode suggestions, and advisor consultations.' It lists specific actions (model, workflow, advisor) with clear purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infer_session_mode or task_analysis, which have different focuses.

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 outlines when to use each action (e.g., action='model' for model recommendations), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among the 27 siblings. The lack of exclusions prevents a score of 5.

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