get_insights

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('retrieve') but does not disclose whether insights are precomputed or generated on-the-fly, what the response format is, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 that front-loads the action ('Retrieve actionable insights') and adds the source context. There is no wasted wording.

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 the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the insights represent, how the filters interact, or what a returned result looks like. The tool's role among its siblings is not clarified, so the description is incomplete for an agent with no other context.

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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, including enums for category, priority, and timeframe. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema itself is fully self-explanatory, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the verb 'retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'actionable insights from vault analysis', clearly stating the tool's function. It does not explicitly mention the insight categories (orphans, connections, gaps, productivity) or distinguish it from generate_report, but the purpose is generally clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_vault, track_changes, or generate_report. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual clues beyond the vague 'from vault analysis'.

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