suggest_command

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Read-only and deterministic' and 'without invoking anything', clearly indicating no side effects. Also mentions return format (formatted block plus scored candidates). Good disclosure.

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 effectively cover purpose, usage, nature, and return. No wasted words; front-loaded with action and outcome.

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 simple search/ranking tool with 2 params and no output schema, description covers purpose, behavior, and return. Lacks example usage or expected input format, but schema covers those. Good enough for typical agent use.

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%, both parameters have descriptions matching the tool's description. The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what schema already provides, so 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?

Clearly states the action (score and return ranked commands) and resource (command-suggestion engine vs slash commands). Distinguishes from siblings like suggest_skill_for_task by explicitly mentioning command-suggestion and from list_commands by the ranking outcome.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to recommend a command for a free-form request without invoking anything', guiding when to use. No explicit when-not, but alternative tools (list_commands, suggest_skill) are present in sibling list. Implies safe read-only use.

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