suggest_transition_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'suggest,' which implies a read-only advisory action, but it does not clarify whether the tool mutates state, what output it returns, or any side effects. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for an agent to anticipate the tool's effects.

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 focused sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a tool with simple parameters.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what a suggestion entails and how the threshold and remainingTokens are used. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output behavior, though the tool's complexity is low. Missing return format and decision logic makes it incomplete.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters (sessionId, threshold, remainingTokens), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by tying the tool's purpose to the 'remaining tokens' concept, but it does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the description's contribution marginal.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('generating a transition card'), along with a condition ('when context is near capacity'). It is clear and distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_context_handoff by focusing on the suggestion rather than the generation itself, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a clear condition for use ('when context is near capacity'), which implies a context for invocation. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as generate_context_handoff, evaluate_context_window, or predict_agent_needs, so the guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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