List suggestions

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already establish that the tool is non-destructive and side-effect-free. The description's 'list' phrasing is consistent with these hints and adds no new behavioral context, but the existing annotations cover transparency adequately.

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, concise sentence with no redundant phrases. It directly states the action, resource, and the optional filter, achieving maximum clarity with minimal words.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter, the description is sufficient. The read-only nature is corroborated by annotations, and the tool's purpose is fully self-explanatory. No additional context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 schema fully covers the only parameter (status) with an enum and description. The tool description reiterates the enum values, providing minimal additional context beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but does not elevate it further.

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 function as listing suggestion records and explicitly mentions the filterable status, making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like suggest_accept or suggest_now, which imply mutations, by focusing on the read-only 'list' action.

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 explicit filtering guidance by enumerating the allowed status values (suggested/accepted/ignored/never), which helps the agent understand how to narrow results. However, it does not directly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like suggest_accept or suggest_now, though the read-only nature is implied by the name and annotations.

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