aura_recommend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose useful behavioral detail: results are curated ('top'), filtered to 'free' items, and include page URLs plus rationale. It does not say whether the call is read-only, how many items come back, or how 'top' is ranked, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One tightly packed sentence-fragment, front-loaded with the tool's role and then the returned item types. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic style gives no room for the missing usage and parameter guidance.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry the return contract, and it partially does by listing the artifact categories and noting URLs and rationale. It omits result count, ranking basis, and any permission or read-only context, leaving the definition only minimally adequate for a one-parameter 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?

The single 'goal' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning — and it only echoes the schema by saying 'for a goal.' It does not clarify expected format (free text vs. keywords), scope, or how specificity affects the result, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource it produces (a curated starter kit of components, skills, design systems, and assets) scoped by an input goal, which is a distinct purpose from the sibling search_* and get_* tools. It stops short of naming those siblings, but an agent can tell this is a recommendation/aggregation tool rather than a lookup.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for a goal' suggests it is invoked when the agent has a goal and wants a bundled starting set rather than individual lookups. It never states when to prefer it over aura_search_all or the per-type search tools, nor any prerequisites, so the routing is left to inference.

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