Suggest Optimizations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that every suggestion is sized in emitted on-disk bytes, that ranking is by severity, and that suggestions are evidence-backed. It also reveals the dependency on webpack stats for certain suggestion categories, which is non-obvious but important behavior.

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 two sentences with high information density and no filler. The core behavior and output value are front-loaded, and the important prerequisite about load_webpack_stats appears at the end without burying the main point.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the tool returns (suggestions), how they are ranked, how they are sized, and what data is required. It does not detail the exact suggestion schema, but for an agent selecting and invoking the tool, the workflow caveat and output gist are 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%, so the baseline is 3; buildId and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the general workflow context, so it neither improves nor harms understanding of the inputs.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Aggregate,' and names the resource domain: route, chunk, and webpack-stats evidence, producing 'bundle optimizations' with concrete Next.js actions. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by framing output as severity-ranked, evidence-backed suggestions rather than raw stats or duplicate lists.

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 explicit sequencing guidance: 'load_webpack_stats first for dedupe, shared-chunk, and package-import suggestions,' and clarifies that it 'works on manifests alone' as a lower-fidelity baseline. It does not enumerate when to choose sibling tools instead, but the prerequisite instruction is strong context.

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