list_ideas

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety profile. Description adds 'Returns paginated results' which discloses pagination behavior not present in annotations. However, lacks details on pagination mechanics (cursor vs offset), rate limits, or maximum dataset sizes that would help an agent handle the response correctly.

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 efficiently structured—first establishes scope and capability, second discloses return format. No tautology or redundant phrasing. Could benefit from one additional sentence distinguishing from siblings or explaining pagination defaults, but currently wastes no space.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, minimal description burden for parameters. However, lacking output schema means the description should ideally explain return structure; 'paginated results' is minimal. Critical gap is missing distinction from query_ideas and search_ideas siblings, which could cause selection errors.

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% with clear enum values and descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description mentions 'optional filters' generally but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between source/destination or typical usage patterns). Baseline 3 appropriate given high 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?

Clearly states 'List ideas in the workspace' with specific resource (ideas) and action (list). Mentions 'optional filters' indicating filtering capability. However, fails to distinguish from siblings like get_idea (singular fetch), query_ideas, or search_ideas which appear to serve similar purposes.

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 like get_idea, query_ideas, or search_ideas. Does not mention prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The phrase 'optional filters' implies usage context but does not contrast with other list/query tools.

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