infomaniak_help

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

The description adds 'Lightweight keyword matching against tool names and descriptions', which honestly discloses the simplistic mechanism and potential limitations. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world) by explaining how the tool arrives at suggestions. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, explaining both what it does and how it works without any fluff.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The tool is simple, and the description covers its input ('intent') and mechanism ('keyword matching'). However, it omits guidance on the 'limit' parameter and what to do with the suggestions (e.g., invoke the suggested tool), but this is partially covered by the schema's default value and the obvious meta-tool role.

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 schema provides a description for 'intent' but not for 'limit'. The tool description mentions 'intent' but does not explain 'limit' at all. With schema coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter, but it does not. The agent is left to infer that 'limit' controls the number of suggestions, which is a gap.

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 a specific verb 'Suggest' with a clear resource 'which Infomaniak tools' and input 'given intent expressed in natural language'. It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by explicitly being a meta-tool that recommends other tools, rather than performing a specific Infomaniak operation.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user has an intent in natural language and needs to identify which Infomaniak tool to invoke. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when the user already knows the exact tool or needs detailed explanations. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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