suggest_projects

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool's process (builds gap report, prescribes projects) and edge case handling (empty GitHub). It does not mention side effects or limitations, but for a suggestion tool this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then elaborating on process and edge cases. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema present (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, edge cases, and output nature (ranked plan with sized/scoped projects). It is complete for a 2-parameter 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?

The description explains the role of each parameter ('resume_text' grounds suggestions, 'username' grounds analysis) beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 0%, this adds necessary meaning.

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 prescribes a ranked 30-day plan of projects to make a resume credible. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (analyze_resume and fetch_github_repos) by being the 'prescription, not just the diagnosis.'

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 provides good usage context, indicating it should be used after diagnosis and highlighting that it handles empty GitHub profiles. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools directly.

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