list_wisdom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only browse operation ('Browse what wisdom exists'), which communicates non-destructive behavior reasonably well. However, it doesn't disclose return format, whether output is flat or nested, ordering, or pagination behavior. The description is adequate but provides minimal behavioral depth for a listing tool.

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 compact sentence plus a filter enum list, all in one line. Efficient and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then the options. Minimal waste, though arguably restating the enum values duplicates the schema. Overall well-sized for a simple one-parameter 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter, the coverage is mostly adequate. The main gap is not explaining what 'global' means as a filter relative to the others, and not describing the structure of what gets returned. However, given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description does not need to be extensive.

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%, with the single 'filter' parameter fully documented via its enum of valid values and default. The description reinforces this by restating the filter options ('all, sections, plans, patterns, sidecars, global'), but adds essentially nothing beyond what the schema already specifies. The description re-lists what the schema's enum provides.

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?

Purpose is clear: 'Browse what wisdom exists in the project' with a specific verb (list/browse) and resource (wisdom). The filter options enumerate the distinct categories (sections, plans, patterns, sidecars, global), which helps distinguish it. It doesn't contrast with sibling tools like get_wisdom or save_wisdom, but the read-only list purpose is unambiguous.

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 says what it does and lists filter options but never states when to use it vs alternatives. Given siblings like get_wisdom and save_wisdom exist, explicit guidance on when to use list over get would add value. The 'Default: all' note gives some operational context but no exclusion criteria or alternative guidance.

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