プロジェクト推薦

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the default behavior (recommends all types) and the filtering rule, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the return format, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. This is a moderate gap given the absent annotations.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value: the first states the primary function, the second covers default behavior and parameter usage. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, and the description does not explain what the recommendation result looks like (e.g., list of tool names, reasons, confidence). It covers types, defaults, and filtering context well, but leaves the return value ambiguous. Given the moderate complexity, the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description reinforces the types parameter's usage by repeating the default behavior and the condition for filtering, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: analyze a project and recommend appropriate tools. It specifies the resource (project analysis) and the verb (recommend), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_skills and get_skill_details by focusing on project-based recommendations rather than search or detail retrieval.

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: the tool recommends tools based on project analysis, and explicitly instructs when to use the types parameter (only when the user requests a specific type). However, it does not mention sibling alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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