Proactive Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these by disclosing the deterministic, time/usage-based nature of the heuristic and the install-specific perspective, which are not evident from the structured fields alone. The absence of side effects (matching idempotency) is reinforced.

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 front-loads the action, defines the resource, and provides the key ranking criteria. Every phrase earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 low complexity (0 params), strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. The deterministic heuristic is well-specified, though a brief note on the default behavior when usage counts are unavailable could make it fully 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds behavioral context about how rankings are computed, though no parameter-specific clarification is needed since there are no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource (tool/workflow candidates) and distinguishes itself through a unique ranking mechanism ('deterministic heuristic over the current time of day, day of week, and this install's tallied usage counts'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like suggest_next_tools or get_workflow.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description (proactive suggestion), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like suggest_next_tools or get_workflow. No exclusion criteria or alternative references are provided, so the agent must infer when the tool should be used.

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