okf_suggest_concept_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the qualifier 'safe,' which implies a behavioral guarantee (e.g., collision-free path generation), but it does not explain what 'safe' entails or any other behavioral details such as dependencies or error conditions.

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, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a string path) and any caveats about 'safe.' It covers the core function but leaves the return format and the meaning of 'safe' ambiguous. However, the tool is simple and all parameters are well-documented, so the gaps are not severe.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema provides full parameter documentation. The description only repeats 'concept type and title' without adding new semantic meaning, so it does not enhance the schema's already adequate parameter descriptions.

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 function with a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('safe bundle relative Markdown path'), and identifies the inputs ('concept type and title'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_concept or read_bundle_asset, which focus on other operations.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool name and description alone.

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