ideas

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

With no annotations, the description does meaningful work: it labels the operation as a read/list, explains that these are archival settled proposals, and ties them to the `awake` session context. However, it still omits operational details like pagination, return shape, and any permission behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it defines the resource first, then gives routing context, then names sibling alternatives. Every sentence contributes to selection or interpretation without waste.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what IDEAS are, how they relate to `awake`, and which siblings to consider. The remaining gap is that it does not describe the return payload or pagination behavior, though the schema handles the only parameter.

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%, and the sole optional `initiative` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, edge-case behavior, or scoping details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (archival IDEAS), and explicitly defines them as proposals that settled without becoming results. It distinguishes the tool from `outcomes` (results) and `settle` (how a node gets here), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: as a deliberate deep read when you want all IDEAS rather than the layered slice loaded by `awake`. It also names the relevant alternatives (`outcomes` for results, `settle` for how a node gets here). This gives clear routing guidance.

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