Proactive Context

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds concrete behavioral details: it uses time of day, day of week, and usage counts, and the heuristic is deterministic. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could mention that no state is modified.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or 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?

Given zero parameters, existing annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose and the heuristic used, leaving no critical gaps for the agent.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 as per instructions. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 clearly states that the tool returns tool/workflow candidates ranked by a deterministic heuristic using time and usage data. It specifies the verb 'return' and the resource 'candidates'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'suggest_next_tools', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when it should be avoided. With siblings like 'suggest_next_tools' and 'get_workflow', explicit usage guidance is missing.

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