suggest_next_steps

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool suggests steps, but does not reveal whether it is read-only, what it returns, how it prioritizes, or if it has side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool without structured metadata.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral details.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return value information, usage context, and parameter semantics, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without further clarification.

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%, and the description only implies 'project_path' through the word 'proyecto'. It does not clarify what constitutes a valid project_path, whether it is a filesystem path or project identifier, or any constraints. The description adds little value beyond the schema's bare property name.

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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Sugiere') and resource ('próximos pasos para un proyecto'), making it distinct from siblings like list_protocols or get_pattern. It could be more explicit about what kind of project or how it differs from other suggestion tools, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool over siblings.

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