get-suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it lists what the tool analyzes (naming, complexity, unused rules, etc.) and states it returns 'categorized suggestions with specific recommendations.' It does not explicitly say 'does not modify the grammar,' but the use of 'Analyzes' and 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, though a direct statement would have been ideal.

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 well-structured: it opens with a one-sentence purpose, includes a clear 'When to use' inset, uses a tight bullet list for analysis categories, and closes with a one-line return summary. Every word earns its place; it is informative without being 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 moderate complexity, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it analyzes, and the general nature of its return value. However, the 'Returns' line is somewhat vague ('Categorized suggestions') without an output schema, and it doesn't clarify parameter interaction (e.g., precedence between `from_file` and `grammar_content`). Overall, it is sufficient for most use cases but has minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with both `from_file` and `grammar_content` fully described. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, such as precedence rules when both are provided or behavior when neither is given. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameter meanings thoroughly.

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 'Get actionable improvement suggestions for an ANTLR4 grammar' with a specific verb and resource. It lists six concrete analysis categories (naming conventions, complexity, unused rules, etc.), which both clarifies scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like validate-grammar or check-style.

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 'When to use' section explicitly says 'Optimize grammar quality, identify issues, get best practice recommendations,' providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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