suggest_alias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: the alias generation algorithm and conflict detection with alternatives. But it doesn't say what the output looks like (a single string? a list of alternatives?), whether it's deterministic, or failure modes for invalid names.

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?

Three tightly-written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the algorithm, then the conflict-detection behavior. Zero waste.

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 2-param helper tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the key behaviors. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the return shape and error handling are unknown. An agent would not know whether it gets one alias or multiple alternatives back.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters with examples. The description explains the algorithm that consumes table_name but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Generates a BSG-standard table alias from a SQL object name.' This is specific and distinguishable from siblings like validate_object_name or generate_template. The mechanism (first letter of each PascalCase word after stripping prefix) adds further precision.

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?

Usage is implied: it's for generating aliases when writing SQL, and the existing_aliases parameter signals conflict detection. However, there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives mentioned among the siblings. The description doesn't say when you'd choose this over manually aliasing or another tool.

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