list_suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes a read operation ('List persisted suggestions') and indicates it returns all suggestions by default, with an optional filter. It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or whether deleted suggestions are included, but it is a simple read tool.

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 that is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It lists the fields and the optional filter with 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?

The tool is simple: two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the purpose, fields, and filter. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it could mention if there is a limit or ordering.

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 coverage is 100%: projectId and status are both described in the schema. The description adds that status filter is optional and lists the status values, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 persisted suggestions for a project and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like record_suggestion (which creates) and list_documents, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 indicates the optional status filter and implies it is for reading suggestions in a project context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus other list tools, 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.