get_recommendations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully communicate behavioral traits, but it only states 'Get code quality recommendations'. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, safe, or what the response structure looks like, leaving a significant gap.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the key action. It wastes no words, but it is arguably too sparse, lacking depth that would make it more useful. Still, for a simple tool, the conciseness is acceptable.

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 should compensate by explaining what 'code quality recommendations' means, how they are generated, or how this tool differs from siblings. It does none of these, making the tool underspecified.

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 already describes both parameters (projectPath with 'Path to the project' and language with 'Language for recommendations (en/he)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter context, but the schema fully carries the load, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('code quality recommendations'), making the tool's action understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like check_quality or get_quick_wins, so it stays at the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' level.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a bare one-liner without any contextual cues, exclusions, or mention of preferred scenarios.

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