recommend_poster_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses only local archive history and saved feedback and does not search the internet, which is valuable. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, what it returns, or how it behaves without enough data.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too minimal to be complete. It does not explain parameter semantics, expected output, or any edge cases, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and the description fails to mention any of the four parameters (month, purpose, recentMonths, programCategories). The description provides no additional meaning about how these parameters influence the recommendation, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 action (recommend) and resource (poster layout/style/table structure), and specifies the data source (local archive history and saved feedback). It also distinguishes itself from potential internet search tools by explicitly stating it does not search the internet.

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 implies usage for local-data-based recommendations but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_poster or render_poster, nor does it state when to use it over other tools. The 'local only' constraint is a limitation but not a direct usage guideline.

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