get_ideas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering ('newest first') and return format ('formatted list ... or a friendly note if none were found'). However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise with two short paragraphs plus structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, front-loading the purpose and then providing targeted details without redundancy.

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 (2 optional parameters) and absence of annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, parameters, output format, and relationship to sibling tools. It is complete and self-contained.

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 description includes an Args section that explains both parameters in detail: scope with exact valid values (today, week, month, all) and defaults, and limit with default and ordering implication. This fully compensates for the input schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the resource 'captured ideas from your knowledge base' with ordering 'newest first'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'Pairs with capture_idea (to add) and cross_pollinate (to surface related work).'

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 provides explicit context: 'Use this to review what you've been thinking about over a chosen time window' and identifies companion tools for adding and connecting ideas. This gives clear guidance on when to use and alternatives.

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