List ideas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the 'newest first' ordering trait, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination behavior or what the result set looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; verb, ordering, and filter list are all delivered immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers ordering and filters adequately, leaving only minor gaps around parameter detail and sibling routing.

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 40% (only limit and offset are documented in the schema). The description names the three filter parameters (domain, tag, status) but adds no matching semantics, format, or value meaning beyond the bare names already visible in the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('ideas') and adds ordering ('newest first') plus the filterable dimensions. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling search_ideas, which an agent could reasonably confuse with filtered listing.

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?

'Optionally filtered by domain, tag, or status' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. search_ideas guidance, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is left partially to inference.

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