ideas_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the output format (prefilledSummary and prefilledDescription) and that it is a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only or discuss side effects, permissions, or limitations. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 relatively long but well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence provides value and is informative without being wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the content and purpose of the tool. It covers what each item contains (prefilledSummary + prefilledDescription) and the context of use, making it complete for an agent to understand and apply correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the projectId parameter beyond what the schema already provides. No extra value added.

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 aggregates 5 organic idea sources from the wiki into a curated pipeline, listing each source and explaining its purpose. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like idea_prompts_get.

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 explicitly states to use this tool to pick the next thing to work on without staring at a blank page, and mentions the output is ready for flow_create. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives, though it is clear enough given context.

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