list_my_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds real value by explaining the session scope and the deduplication purpose, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it is paginated, or any authorization requirements. Adequate but not rich for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what is returned, the second states the triggering situation and the reason. No filler and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns) comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be explained. The description covers the purpose, the session scope, and the dedup workflow; the only real gap is the undocumented include_closed default, which matters for predicting whether answered questions appear.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter include_closed is never mentioned in the description. Since the default is false, the tool silently hides closed questions, and the description's claim of returning questions 'with their status and answers' does not clarify this filtering behavior. With only one parameter, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing the questions this session has asked the operator, including status and answers. The session-scoped framing ('this session has asked') is a meaningful qualifier, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling check_answers.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition and timing: call it after compaction or resume, before asking anything, to avoid re-asking. This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it never names an alternative tool or states when a sibling such as check_answers would be preferred.

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