moa_tip_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavior: archived rows are hidden by default (implying an opt-in override). It also clarifies that results are 'lightweight summaries', setting expectations about payload size. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read/list operation this is acceptable.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value: 'lightweight', 'summaries', 'status/module/tag filters', and 'archived rows are hidden by default' all convey essential information without redundancy. This is model conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key default behavior. It could be more complete by specifying what fields a 'summary' contains or mentioning pagination, but the description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role within the context of sibling tools.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'status', 'module', and 'tag' filters, and the 'archived hidden by default' phrase gives meaning to 'includeArchived'. However, it does not clarify the distinction between 'tag' and 'tags', or the 'limit' parameter. Some parameters remain ambiguous despite the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('lightweight project Tip summaries') with filter dimensions (status/module/tag). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like moa_tip_read by emphasizing 'summaries' and listing filters, and it adds a key behavioral differentiator: archived rows hidden by default.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when listing tip summaries by filters). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., moa_tip_read for individual tips) is enough to infer the tool's niche. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it doesn't reach 5.

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