Smart Suggest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'directory health' and 'actionable suggestions' but offers no further behavioral context such as performance characteristics, caching effects, or what kind of analysis is performed. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. It is efficient and not padded, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no description of return format or potential failures, the description is minimal. It does not mention what 'suggestions' look like (markdown vs json), how large directories are handled, or typical side effects (even though non-destructive). The description leaves many operational details unexplained.

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?

With 88% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only gives a general sense of the tool's purpose. Parameters like max_files, sample_rate, and use_cache are documented in the schema and the description does not elaborate on why they matter for this tool.

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 states the verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'directory health', and clarifies the outcome ('get actionable suggestions for organization'). This is clear and distinct from specific scan/categorize tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'organize_smart' which might also produce suggestions.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (scan_directory, categorize_by_type, find_largest_files, etc.). The description implies 'use when you want suggestions', but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or conditions that would favor this tool.

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