list_mistakes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful ordering trait ('newest first') and the paired-parameter constraint for single-problem lookup, but says nothing about pagination beyond the schema's limit, default result size, or how multiple filters combine.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and ordering before enumerating filters. Nothing is padded, though the 'label' term is a wasted/ambiguous token rather than a useful one.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needs no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with all 6 parameters undocumented and one filter name ('label') not matching the schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to choose filter parameters confidently.

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 0% for 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it only partially does. It mentions tag, platform, problem_id and days but never explains 'limit', and it refers to a 'label' filter that does not match any schema property (the closest are 'tag' and 'kind'), leaving genuine ambiguity about which parameter to use.

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?

States a specific verb-equivalent (lists journaled mistakes) plus ordering ('newest first') and return content ('with the problem each was made on'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mistake_patterns or mistake_kinds, which are the tools an agent might confuse it with.

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 enumerates the filter axes (label, problem tag, platform, one problem via platform+problem_id, last days), which implies when the tool applies, and it clarifies that a single problem requires both platform and problem_id. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. mistake_patterns/mistake_kinds guidance and no exclusions or combination rules.

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