Get a read-only recommendation for the next design round without starting one. Use this advisory output to guide decisions while keeping the current round locked.
Read-only advisory operation. Return the engine's bounded recommendation. It is non-authoritative and never starts a round.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the recommendation is bounded, non-authoritative, and never starts a round. This provides useful nuance without contradicting 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?
Three short, focused sentences with the key qualifier 'read-only advisory operation' front-loaded. Every sentence adds distinct value and there is no redundant filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only advisory tool with an output schema and safety-related annotations, the description covers all essential behavioral information. Nothing else is needed for a correct call.
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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.
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 states the exact operation: returning the engine's bounded, non-authoritative recommendation. It also clarifies that the tool never starts a round, which helps separate it from state-changing siblings. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings, so it stops short of a perfect 5.
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 implies when to use the tool: when a read-only advisory recommendation is needed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives such as preview_round, get_round, or readiness, so the usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.