Suggest triage decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description confirms this is local and read-only. It goes further by disclosing an auth failure mode (returns an authentication error without SKYLOS_API_KEY) and a fallback rate limit of 5 calls/day for `analyze`. That auth/rate-limit context is real value beyond the 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 core purpose and the learn_triage dependency lead, which is the right front-loading. The closing sentence on CLI alternatives is useful but slightly tangential and lengthens the definition beyond what is needed to call this tool.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, dependency, auth prerequisite and rate limits. The return-shape sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage — including the relative-path resolution rule — the schema already carries the semantics, and the description adds nothing further about `path`. 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?

States a specific verb (suggest) and resource (triage decisions for current findings) and ties the behavior to a named sibling, `learn_triage`, which supplies the learned decisions. An agent can immediately distinguish this read-side suggester from the write-side recorder.

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 makes the precondition clear — suggestions exist 'based on decisions recorded with `learn_triage` in this project' — so the agent knows to call learn_triage first. It also notes the API-key requirement that gates whether the tool works at all, but it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., the local CLI path) as a routing decision.

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