alcove_idea_list

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, pagination, filtering, or side effects. It simply states 'list', which implies a read operation but without confirmation or additional context.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which could be conciseness, but it omits essential details. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks structure—no breakdown of parameters, behavior, or context. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'low-friction' means, how parameters affect the list, or what the output contains. The tool's purpose remains ambiguous despite the output schema existing.

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 has 3 parameters (home, status, workspace) with defaults but zero descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds no explanation for these parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. An agent cannot determine how to use the 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 'List low-friction ideas' with a clear verb (list) and resource (ideas). It distinguishes from siblings like alcove_idea_add and alcove_idea_promote, which have different actions. However, the term 'low-friction' is somewhat vague and could be more specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like alcove_pin_list or alcove_project_list. The description lacks explicit context or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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