suggest_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the conditional side effect: with auto_add=True it adds suggestions as pending signals automatically. It also discloses the return fields (candidates list and added_count). It doesn't cover permissions or reversibility, but for a suggestion tool the key mutating behavior is transparent.

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 three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose. It wastes no words: purpose, data sources, conditional side effect, and return values each get concise, dedicated coverage.

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 (two params, no output schema), the description covers the essential parts: what it analyzes, the optional mutation, and what it returns. It doesn't discuss error cases or profile lookup failures, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly for the common case.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains auto_add behavior well, noting that true triggers automatic addition of pending signals. For profile_slug, however, it only says 'for an interest profile' without explicitly mapping the parameter or clarifying slug/format, leaving some parameter meaning under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Generate signal suggestions') and identifies the resource ('interest profile'). It also specifies the data sources (triaged papers, frequent queries, recurring authors), which distinguishes it from sibling add/search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast siblings, so it falls slightly short of full differentiation.

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 the use case: you want signal suggestions derived from workflow activity, and it even lists the activity types considered. It does not, however, say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., using add_signal or batch_add_signals for known signals), leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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