list_suggestions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Browse' implies a read-only operation and 'public verdicts' indicates output content, but it does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, default limit, or any side effects.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the status list is directly relevant. Every piece of the description 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 simple list tool, the description covers the main concept, but without an output schema it does not explain the return structure. It also omits details about limit handling, sorting, or whether all suggestions are returned, leaving some inference required.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does connect the status parameter to the verdicts and lists the enum values, but it adds nothing about the limit parameter, such as its purpose or default behavior.

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 uses a clear verb ('Browse') and a specific resource ('improvement suggestions for Mnemosyne'), and the plural listing scope distinguishes it from get_suggestion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: browse suggestions when you want to see a list and their verdicts. But there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of get_suggestion, suggest_improvement, or discuss_suggestion, nor any exclusion criteria.

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