suggest_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a recommendation rather than executing endpoints, and explicitly notes endpoints are not required. It does not detail the plan format, but for a non-destructive advisory tool this is reasonable.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the input condition is front-loaded and the output promise follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter advisory tool, the description specifies the input, the output shape, and the absence of an endpoint requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides only a 'goal' string with zero description. The phrase 'one-line app goal' adds meaningful constraints on format and scope that the schema lacks, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: given a one-line app goal, return the MCP tools plus a plan. This clearly differentiates it from the many data-retrieval siblings such as get_player or get_matches, which fetch data rather than plan a build.

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 phrase 'Given a one-line app goal' establishes a clear use context, and 'no endpoints required' distinguishes it from endpoint-driven data tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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