get_schema_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The only behavioral hint is that recommendations come from analysis/suggestions/inference, but no clarity on mutability or performance.

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 covers the core function and sources. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing source options explicitly) but overall efficient.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of recommendations with status), how to interpret results, or any prerequisites. Given the tool's non-trivial nature (multiple sources and filters), more context is needed.

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?

All four parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already includes details like default values (e.g., 'default: all' for source). Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get schema update recommendations for an entity type' and lists three sources (raw_fragments, agent, inference). It identifies the key resource (entity type) and action (get recommendations). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'analyze_schema_candidates' or 'register_schema', which could cause confusion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving recommendations, but it does not state when not to use it or mention related tools. The context signals and sibling list are available, but the description itself lacks usage direction.

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