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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of revealing behavior, but it only offers a metaphor and a note about how quests complete. It does not disclose read-only behavior, the kinds of items returned, status interpretation, or any side-effect/temporal characteristics beyond the name 'list'.

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 entry is short, which is good, but it is not front-loaded with a clear action. The first sentence is an image rather than an explanation, and the second sentence about completion feels tangential to a listing tool.

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 description is too thin to be self-sufficient for an agent operating among 13 sibling tools. It lacks the scope of the listing, the meaning of a 'quest,' and when to use it, and it does not compensate for the absence of an output schema or annotations.

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 single optional 'status' parameter is already fully described by the schema with an enum and 'filter by status' help text. The description adds no supplementary parameter meaning and could even confuse the agent by emphasizing 'open' problems while 'done' and 'claimed' are valid statuses.

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 is a noun phrase about an 'open-problems board' rather than a statement of what the tool does. It never explicitly says that this tool lists quests or that it can filter by status, so the agent must infer the action from the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call list_quests versus alternatives like claim_quest, complete_quest, or list_spaces. The second sentence about quest completion is a domain rule, not a usage selector, so it does not help the agent choose this tool over siblings.

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