wisdom_list_fragments

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but never states it, and the only behavioral disclosure is 'recent' (ordering). It says nothing about pagination flow, how the project filter scopes results, or what the response contains, which is thin given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Three words is efficient and front-loaded with the verb, but it borders on under-specification. The brevity sacrifices the opportunity to clarify the list-vs-search distinction or the meaning of 'recent,' making it concise without being informative.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context, yet it leaves major gaps: the relationship with wisdom_search_fragments, the pagination cursor flow, and project-scoping defaults are all undocumented at the description level. With multiple sibling list_* tools, an agent needs more to reliably select and invoke this tool.

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 100%, so limit (default 20), cursor (pagination), and project (UUID filter, defaults to current project) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full load.

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 ('List') and resource ('fragments'), with 'recent' adding a recency-ordering qualifier that goes beyond a bare tautology. However, it fails to differentiate from the closest sibling, wisdom_search_fragments — an agent cannot tell from the description when to use list vs search.

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 usage context is provided. The description never addresses the key routing decision between this tool and wisdom_search_fragments, nor does it mention when project filtering or cursor pagination would be appropriate. There is no 'use X instead when...' guidance.

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