get_tool_suggestions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what the tool actually does with the request, whether it returns a list of tool names, whether it requires any prior context, or if it has side effects. The phrase 'ask this tool' is vague and does not reveal the nature of the response or any limitations.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, and the message is front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative about behavior, but as is, it is not verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke it. However, it lacks detail on what the suggestion response looks like, which could be helpful given there is no output schema to clarify this. The context signals indicate a very simple tool, so the description is nearly complete but could be improved with a note about the expected return.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description covers 100% of the schema (which is empty). Since there are no parameters to explain, the description is not required to add param semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to compensate for; the tool accepts no input.

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: to ask for help when stuck and unsure of what other tools to use. It uses a specific verb 'ask' and resource 'tool suggestions', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like report_blocker which reports blockers, and compact_memory which manages memory.

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 when to use this tool ('if you are stuck and don't know what other tools to use'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides clear context for use but lacks exclusionary guidance, such as 'do not use if you know the next step' or 'for specific blockers, use report_blocker instead'.

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