list

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as default exclusions of archived items and checkpoint rows, which is valuable for agent decision-making.

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 two sentences: first sentence lists filters and return fields, second explains key defaults. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of redundant information.

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?

Given 10 parameters, an output schema exists, and no nested objects, the description covers return fields and two defaults but omits details on parameter formatting and interaction. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only lists parameter names without explaining semantics like date format, tag matching logic, or behavior when multiple filters combine. This leaves significant ambiguity despite naming parameters.

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 lists ideas with filters and specifies the return fields. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing with filters, but does not explicitly differentiate from the 'search' sibling tool.

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 provides guidance on defaults (excluded archived and checkpoints) and how to include them via parameters. However, it lacks clear directions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'get', and no explicit when-not-to-use advice.

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