suggest_neon_intrinsic

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the similarity-based ranking, architecture filtering ('Filtered to armv8-a'), and the exact return shape including notes about knowledge-base counts. It stops short of describing error/empty-match behavior, but it provides substantial transparency for a read-only suggestion tool.

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 well organized into purpose, usage conditions, Args, Returns, and Example. The example return object and worked call are informative rather than redundant. Every section earns its place and supports correct invocation.

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 no output schema, the description supplies a full return structure, a notes field explanation, and a ranking example. It covers parameters, defaults, and expected results comprehensively for a tool of this complexity. No critical information needed to select or use the tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. It explains operation_description with a concrete example, enumerates valid target_arch values and the default, and states top_k's default and purpose. An agent can call this tool correctly without needing additional parameter documentation.

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 opens with a precise statement: 'Suggest NEON SIMD intrinsics for an operation description, ranked by semantic similarity.' This names the exact verb, resource, and ranking behavior, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is also clearly distinct from sibling tools like analyze_perf_output and check_arm64_deps.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: for a hot loop, Arm64 vectorization, or when the user mentions intrinsic names like vmlaq_f32. It does not give explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance, but the sibling tools are topically distant enough that confusion is unlikely.

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