get_ideas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or authorization needs beyond the implied read-only retrieval. The description is minimal.

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 clear lines for parameters. No extraneous information. The format is efficient.

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 presence of an output schema and only two parameters with defaults, the description sufficiently covers the tool's input behavior. It does not explain what 'ideas' are, but the context is minimal.

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 adds meaning to the parameters beyond the schema: 'Time scope -- "today", "week", "month", "all".' and 'Maximum results (default 20).' This contextualizes the defaults and valid values, compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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 'Retrieve ideas from the database' clearly states the verb and resource. Among siblings, there are many retrieval tools, but this one is specific to 'ideas', providing enough distinction. However, it could be more precise about the source or context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. Siblings like 'capture_idea' or 'get_brainstorm_session' are not addressed.

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