list_ideas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a safe read operation and mentions the filter semantics, but says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior beyond the limit param, result ordering, or what an empty result means. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Front-loads the action and the 'use this first' guidance, and the filter and next-step sentences are short and purposeful. Slightly dense with three separate clauses but no waste.

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 zero-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter usage, and follow-on routing. It lacks only a note about return shape/ordering, which is minor here.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates topic_id and promoted semantics rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List content ideas') plus the pipeline stage and available filters. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings create_idea, promote_idea, and get_idea by scope (list vs. single vs. create).

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 tells the agent to use it 'first to see what ideas already exist before creating new ones' and names alternatives (create_idea, promote_idea) as typical next steps. There is no explicit 'when not to use' statement, which keeps it short of a 5.

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