recommend_project

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 discloses the scoring logic (recency, activity, optional interest matching) and parameter behavior, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is useful but not fully 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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence, one scoring sentence, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values are covered externally. The description adds scoring criteria, optional-interest semantics, and parameter definitions, making the tool sufficiently understandable for its moderate complexity.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description includes a dedicated Args section that defines both parameters: interests as a comma-separated list with an example, and limit as the number of recommendations. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 action 'Recommend a project to work on next,' clearly identifying the resource and intent. It distinguishes from sibling repository tools by focusing on next-project selection and scoring by recency, activity, and optional interests.

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?

Establishes a clear usage context: to decide which project to work on next, optionally filtered by interests. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection.

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