merge_suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Advisory' usefully implies the output is non-mutating, and it enumerates what the report contains, but it says nothing about required permissions, cost/runtime, or how feasibility is computed.

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?

It is a single sentence plus a one-word trailer, so there is no padding, and it front-loads the resource. However, the heavy domain jargon (anti-unified, merge/1, ce.merge-report) makes it dense to the point of obscuring the point for a reader without prior context.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by enumerating the report's fields. It still omits usage context (when this beats clone/check_duplication) and any behavioral constraints, leaving it only minimally sufficient.

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 100% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'subpath (default: project root)'. The description adds nothing about the path parameter, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (clone-merge suggestions) and details the report contents — clone groups, T1/T2 families, T3 pairs, anti-unification by merge/1, parameters, kept member, lines saved, feasibility. This is far more specific than a restatement, though it never names related siblings like clone, check_duplication, or similar_units to disambiguate.

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?

Only guidance is the trailing word 'Advisory.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no routing to alternatives such as clone or similar_units, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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