get_suggested_actions

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

Provides behavioral context that the menu is recomputed and reflects latest grounding/quality. However, since no annotations exist, the description should explicitly state if it's read-only or has no side effects. It does not mention authentication or mutability.

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 sentences, first defines purpose, second explains items and recomputation. No superfluous words. Information is front-loaded and clear.

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?

Covers purpose, output structure, and dynamic nature. However, lacks error handling information or any expansion on the return schema, which is present. For a simple read tool with one parameter, it is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It ties the single parameter 'report_id' to the report context but does not elaborate on format or constraints. Since only one parameter exists and is implied, the description adds marginal value.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Return' and the resource 'machine-readable next-step menu for a report'. Further describes the items and their use, distinguishing from sibling tools that focus on analysis, reports, or specific actions.

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?

Implies usage context through description of dynamic recomputation from current bundle, but does not explicitly state when to use or when to prefer alternatives. No mention of when not to use or comparisons with sibling tools.

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