recommend_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core function and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it depends on project state, how it derives the order, or what side effects it might have. For a tool that orchestrates other tool calls, this is a meaningful gap.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler words. It is appropriately short, though the cryptic '.gia' term slightly harms clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., an ordered list, recommended commands, step descriptions). It does not. An agent can invoke it but cannot anticipate the result format or how to act on the recommendation.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage for the single required 'goal' parameter. The description maps 'idea' to goal implicitly, but it does not explain what format, level of detail, or language the goal should use. Since schema coverage is zero, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 uses a specific verb ('recommend') and names a resource (tool call order 'from idea to .gia'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from execution-focused siblings like scaffold_project and generate_logic, since it is a meta-planning tool. However, the term '.gia' is undefined and the phrase 'from idea to .gia' is ambiguous, so it does not fully reach a 5.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for planning a sequence, but there is no explicit context or exclusions.

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