list_suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only browse operation via the verb 'browse' but does not explicitly state that. It also omits pagination behavior, default ordering, return format, and any authentication or side-effect details.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, no filler words. Every word adds meaning, and the status list is compactly embedded.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not describe the return structure, default limit, sorting order, or any caveats about filtering or visibility. Given the absence of annotations, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The description mentions the status parameter with its enum values, but these already appear in the input schema. It does not explain the limit parameter, its default, or how pagination works. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only partially does.

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 'Browse' and resource 'improvement suggestions for Mnemosyne', and mentions public verdicts with statuses. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_suggestion (single) and suggest_improvement (create), though it does not explicitly differentiate by name.

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?

Provides context that it browses suggestions with statuses, but does not mention when to use this instead of alternatives like get_suggestion or list_discussions. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are given, leaving an agent without routing guidance.

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