recommend_actions

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states the tool 'returns' actions, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the nature of the 'current Tempo state' dependency. The examples add color but not critical transparency details.

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 succinct at two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence provides useful examples, though the phrase 'separate Tempo from a wellness tracker' is slightly superfluous. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, with minimal waste.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must cover the essential context. It explains the tool's output type ('prescriptive business actions') but does not detail the output format, the effect of window_days, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 defines a single parameter, window_days, but provides no description for it. The tool description does not mention window_days at all, leaving the parameter's meaning and influence entirely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, making the parameter effectively opaque to the agent.

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 opens with 'Return prescriptive business actions based on current Tempo state,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It further clarifies with concrete examples (price raises, meeting declines, rest days, deep-work blocks), distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_action. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implied by the description: the tool is for getting prescriptive actions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_action or tempo_score. The description does not mention exclusions or conditional use cases, so while the context is clear, it lacks direct usage direction.

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