Recommend Workflow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description ('recommend') aligns with these but adds no new behavioral details beyond 'safest', which is ambiguous. No contradiction.

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, each earning their place: first states purpose, second gives usage context. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema) and clear sibling context, the description adequately covers the purpose and usage. It could elaborate on what 'safest' means, but the parameter descriptions fill in some gaps.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context to both parameters. For 'goal', it provides examples and hints at omitting to list common workflows. For 'risk_tolerance', it explains the effect of 'balanced' on friction. This adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool recommends the safest e-arveldaja workflow for a user goal. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on guidance and workflow selection, not on direct task execution.

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 advises using this tool 'when the user asks what to do next or when choosing among many tools.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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