suggest-alternative

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

Annotations are empty, so description must handle behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'considers different paradigms, simpler solutions, proven patterns, and trade-offs' which hints at the thought process but does not detail side effects, permissions, or output characteristics. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action and followed by supporting context. Highly efficient.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description provides a reasonable purpose and parameter hints but does not specify the format of the output (e.g., structured list, text suggestions) or how alternatives are presented. Adequate for a straightforward suggestion tool but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'suggests alternative approaches or solutions' with specific considerations (paradigms, simpler solutions, patterns, trade-offs). It effectively communicates the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'solve-problem' or 'consult'.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'consult' or 'solve-problem'. The description implies a brainstorming or alternative-generation use case but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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