suggest_nameAnalyze a document to suggest a content-based name, date, issuer, kind, summary, and keywords; if confidence is low, read the file first.
Date, issuer, kind, summary, keywords and a name for one document. confident=false: read it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "suggest_nameOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description only telegraphs a confidence flag and a read-it fallback without explaining what confidence means, what is returned, or what 'read it' refers to.
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?
It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: two fragments with no clear subject, no front-loaded purpose, and a cryptic 'confident=false: read it' clause.
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 and zero parameter documentation, the description must carry the full burden, yet it neither explains the input nor clarifies the output or the confidence behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from the definition alone.
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% for the single required parameter 'path', so the schema provides no meaning. The description never mentions the parameter at all, leaving its expected value (file path? folder?) undocumented in both places.
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 enumerates presumed output fields (date, issuer, kind, summary, keywords, name) but never states the verb or that it operates on a document at the given path. 'suggest_name' plus this fragment implies name suggestion, but it is closer to a field list than a stated purpose, and the plural sibling suggest_names is not distinguished.
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?
'confident=false: read it' gestures at a fallback (read the document when confidence is low) but is too compressed to be actionable. There is no guidance on when to use this versus suggest_names, read_document, survey, or inventory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.