suggest_queries

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

The description confirms read-only behavior, consistent with the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, and adds a concrete response shape even without an output schema. It does not mention edge cases like rate limits or authentication, but these are less critical for a read-only onboarding helper.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the onboarder identity is front-loaded, usage timing is clear, the alternative is named, and the JSON return shape is compactly listed. There is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output fields, usage timing, and the relevant sibling. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none; instead it clarifies what the no-input call returns, which is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('shows') and names the resource types it exposes: top imported files, connected symbols, language stats, and example tool calls. It also explicitly differentiates from get_project_map, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

It states the exact condition for use — 'Call this first when exploring an unfamiliar project' — and names the alternative, get_project_map, for a structured project map. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an explicit replacement.

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