list_insights

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), that content is included, and implies a non-destructive read operation. Mentions credits as a resource to conserve. Lacks details on pagination or rate limits, but adequate for a list 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?

Two concise sentences. First states the core function with ordering and content. Second provides actionable advice. No filler, each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, description covers main purpose, ordering, content, and a sibling use case (discord). Missing details on output format or pagination defaults, but sufficient given simplicity.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage) with descriptions. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'project' but no elaboration on kind, limit, or status. Baseline 3 as schema already documents.

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?

Description specifies 'List existing insights for a project' with ordering 'newest first' and content details. It distinguishes from generate_*_insight siblings by advising to check existing insights before generating new ones, and mentions integration with discord_send_message.

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?

Explicitly recommends using this tool to read existing insights before generating new ones to save credits. Provides context for usage with discord_send_message. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear.

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