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

While the annotations handle the safety profile (readOnlyHint), the description adds critical behavioral context. The explicit distinction ('Ideas are NOT tasks') is a major behavioral warning that helps the agent understand the data type and prevents misuse.

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 highly efficient and front-loaded. It delivers the core functionality, scope definition, and critical warning about task distinction in a tight, high-value structure.

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?

It is very complete regarding usage and scope parameters. The only minor gap, common for list functions without an output schema, is the lack of detail on the eventual returned data structure or pagination behavior.

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?

Since schema description coverage is low (25%), the description must compensate. It successfully does this by explaining the qualitative difference between the `scope` enum values and stating that filtering can occur by `projectId` or `status`, thus adding meaningful context beyond the schema types.

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 purpose—to list captured ideas. It excels by detailing the operational semantics of the `scope` parameter ('general' for unfiled, 'mine' for caller's ideas, 'all' for both), providing precise definitions for different use cases.

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 tool provides explicit guidance on when *not* to use it, specifically warning the user that ideas are not tasks and instructing them to use `list_my_tasks` if they need to see tasks. This robustly prevents incorrect sibling tool invocation.

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