iyke_scratchpad_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the list returns id, name, updated_at, and a 200-char preview, and that scope defaults to active project. However, it does not mention pagination, error handling, or other behavioral traits like ordering or limits. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence covers action and scope default; the second lists return fields. Every word is informative and necessary. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential information: what it does, default behavior, and what each returned entry contains. It is complete for basic usage, though it could mention any limitations like pagination or how to list all scratchpads if no scope is specified.

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%, so the description must explain the single parameter 'scope'. It does so by stating the default value ('active project'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. The description could be improved by specifying valid scope formats, but for an optional parameter, this is sufficient.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'scratchpads' with scope qualifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like iyke_scratchpad_write by focusing on listing. The return fields are specified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions scope defaults to active project, providing context on default behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like iyke_scratchpad_read for individual items. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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