Suggest New Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. Description adds a behavioral constraint (min query count) and explains the analysis source (usage logs), complementing annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Description is concise with only two sentences plus a note. Purpose is stated upfront, and no unnecessary text is present. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing args and returns explicitly).

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, input condition, and output type (list of recommendations). It omits details like recommendation format or examples, but remains complete enough for a simple tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so description is not required to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 applies as schema coverage is 100% and description adds no redundant information.

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 the tool analyzes usage logs to suggest new specialized tools, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'suggest_improvements' by focusing on new tools from usage data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

Description provides a precondition (requires at least 2 queries for same type) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like suggest_improvements or analyze_usage. No explicit context for selection.

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