list_my_ideas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it lists data for the authenticated account, which is a behavioral constraint, but doesn't disclose details like pagination, ordering, or whether it requires an active session beyond the implication.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, and includes a useful reference to the UI equivalent. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the fields, the scope (authenticated account), and the UI equivalent. It could mention if there's a limit or ordering, but given the simplicity, it's adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (title, description, status) and the data source.

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 tool lists ideas (title + description + status) for the authenticated account, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like submit_idea and list_my_tool_requests.

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?

It implies usage for viewing previously submitted ideas, and the mention of 'authenticated account' implies a prerequisite of authentication. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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