list_thoughts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists the user's own thoughts and returns paginated results, which adds some context beyond the schema. However, it omits how filters combine (AND/OR), the default sort order, and the structure of individual thought objects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single 16-word sentence that encapsulates the action, resource, filter scope, and pagination. It is front-loaded with the verb, and every phrase adds value with no filler or 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?

The description covers the core function and filter options, but with 11 optional parameters and no output schema, it omits important behavioral context such as default ordering, filter combination semantics, and the shape of the paginated response. It is adequate for simple usage but incomplete for sophisticated filtering scenarios.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level grouping of filter types (stream, classification, category, date range, text search) that maps to the schema parameters, but it adds no syntax or interaction details beyond what the schema already documents. It is a helpful summary but not a substantive addition.

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 opens with 'List your captured thoughts', providing a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by enumerating filter dimensions (stream, classification, category, date range, text search) and noting pagination, which sets it apart from get_thought (single retrieval) and list_recent_thoughts (recency-limited).

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (when listing thoughts with optional filters) but does not reference alternatives such as search_thoughts or list_recent_thoughts, nor does it provide exclusions or comparative guidance. It leaves the agent to infer selection based on the stated capability.

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