list_ideas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return format (markdown table) and an important display constraint (do not reformat or drop dates and ids), but it omits default filtering behavior, pagination/limit behavior, and whether the operation is read-only.

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 two tight sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the presentation instruction follows naturally.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It addresses output presentation but leaves critical context such as parameter meanings, default status behavior, and usage alternatives unexplained.

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 has five parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain to, from, limit, status, or project; 'parked ideas' only faintly hints at a status default, and 'dates and ids' refers to output, not input parameters.

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 and resource: list ideas as a markdown table. However, it says 'parked ideas' while the schema exposes a status enum covering parked, due, snoozed, done, and all, so the stated scope is narrower and potentially misleading. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling search_ideas or get_idea.

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 gives no guidance on when to use list_ideas versus search_ideas, get_idea, or other siblings. It only instructs how to present the returned table, leaving tool selection and filtering conditions to inference.

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