suggest_tools_for_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns the top 3 most relevant tools with confidence scores, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (though 'suggest' implies no mutation), permissions, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving aspects undocumented.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and result. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the core purpose and return format (top 3 tools with confidence scores). The schema covers all parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The only gap is that projectId is not mentioned in the description, but its role is partially evident from the schema. Overall, the description is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the default baseline is 3. The description adds that the suggestion is based on 'description and category', linking taskDescription and taskCategory to the behavior, but it does not add detail about projectId or parameter formatting. This adds minimal 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get AI-powered MCP tool suggestions') and the resource ('for a task based on description and category'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'suggest_agents_for_task' by specifically targeting tools rather than agents, and it also notes the output (top 3 with confidence scores). This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used when the need is to suggest MCP tools for a task. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like 'suggest_agents_for_task', nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is present but shallow.

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