recommend_project_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis and recommendation but lacks details on what 'project signals' entail, how recommendations are generated, whether this is a read-only or write operation, performance characteristics, or error handling. For a complex tool with 22 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, given the tool's complexity and 22 undocumented parameters, this brevity might be insufficient rather than optimally concise.

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 high complexity (22 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'project signals' are, how recommendations are structured, or the role of parameters. While the output schema may cover return values, the description lacks context for understanding the tool's operation and inputs, making it inadequate for such a multifaceted tool.

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%, meaning none of the 22 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters, their purposes, or how they influence the analysis and recommendations. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters like 'sourceDir', 'maxFiles', and various boolean flags unexplained.

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's purpose: 'Analyze project signals and recommend agent definitions with materialization-ready arguments.' It specifies the action (analyze and recommend) and the output (agent definitions with arguments). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'materialize_recommended_agents' or 'scaffold_project_agents', which appear related but have different functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'materialize_recommended_agents', 'scaffold_project_agents', 'rank_agent_packs'), there is no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or what scenarios warrant its use over others. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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