list_insights

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions an optional status filter but omits that the schema default is 'proposed' (as seen in the input schema). This could mislead an agent into thinking all insights are listed when no filter is provided. The read-only nature is implied by 'List', but the default filtering behavior is a significant undisclosed trait.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It includes the key optional filter without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filter options. However, it fails to disclose the default 'proposed' status, which is critical for correct invocation. It also does not mention any pagination or ordering behavior, though this may be less critical given the output schema.

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 description adds meaning beyond the raw schema by enumerating the valid status values: 'proposed | accepted | rejected'. The schema only shows a string or null type with no enum, so this is valuable semantic information. It does not mention the default value, but the core parameter meaning is well covered.

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: 'List reflection insights'. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('reflection insights'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memories or list_decisions. The optional status filter is also mentioned, adding precision.

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 implies usage context: it is for listing insight results from the reflection process, while sibling tools like accept_insight and reject_insight are for modifying them. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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