recommend_for_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the selection heuristic ('Prefers maintained servers with ready client configs'), which tells the agent how results are ranked, but says nothing about return format, result count, or whether the recommendation is deterministic.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the selection heuristic appended. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 lightweight read-only recommendation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, the optional goal, and the ranking heuristic. Minor gaps remain around result volume and output shape, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 50% (only 'device' is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does so by providing concrete goal examples ('monitor prints', 'flash firmware', 'control lights') that clarify the otherwise-undocumented 'goal' parameter. The 'device' parameter is already well covered by the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Recommend') and a specific resource ('MCP servers'), scoped to 'a specific device' with an optional goal. This clearly differentiates it from the lookup-oriented siblings (list_devices, search_servers, get_server), though it never names them explicitly.

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 goal examples ('monitor prints', 'flash firmware', 'control lights') imply intended usage contexts, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or distinction from search_servers, which could plausibly serve a similar need. Usage is left implicit.

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