get_suggested_actions

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: the result is 'recomputed from the current bundle' to reflect latest grounding/quality, and items can be presented or used for auto-invocation. This goes beyond the structured hints, though it doesn't cover error cases or edge effects.

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 exactly two sentences, with the first sentence delivering the core purpose immediately. The second sentence adds necessary detail on item structure and recomputation without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, this description covers the essential aspects: what it returns and the dynamic 'recomputed' behavior. The output schema handles return details, so the description need not elaborate further. It lacks error handling notes but is sufficient for a simple read-only 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 input schema has only report_id with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It does add some context by saying 'for a report' and referencing the 'current bundle', implying report_id refers to a report within that bundle. However, it does not explain the ID format, provenance, or validation, which is a partial compensation only.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly specifies the resource: 'the machine-readable next-step menu for a report'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_report by focusing on suggested actions, and even outlines the item structure ({action, label, rationale, ref}), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a report's next-step menu is needed, to be presented or auto-invoked. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_actions, but the purpose is evident. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparison, preventing a 5.

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