syncpen_list_suggestions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses default behavior (pending only) and how to retrieve all statuses. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or mention any limitations (e.g., no rate limits, auth requirements).

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, default behavior, and optional parameter use. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential info but lacks details on response format, pagination, or error conditions. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions; tool description adds context that 'pending' is default and 'all' includes accepted/rejected, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's enum list.

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 a document's suggestions, with the specific purpose of seeing pending suggestions. It distinguishes from siblings like syncpen_list_comments by focusing on suggestions.

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?

While it mentions the default status and how to include accepted/rejected, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others (e.g., syncpen_list_comments for comments, syncpen_read for content). No alternative or exclusion guidance.

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