mind_quarantine_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains that results are deliberately excluded from mind_search, that the layer comes from the v0.11 relevance gate, and that ordering is newest first. It does not cover permissions or pagination/truncation behavior, which would round out the mutation-free read profile.

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?

The deprecation and replacement instruction is correctly front-loaded, and the parenthetical packs scope, exclusion-from-search, trigger, and ordering efficiently. The nested parenthetical is dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it adequately explains what the tool returns and how results are ordered. The main omission is what happens if the deprecated tool is called after removal, and limit's effect on the result set.

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 50%: 'library' is documented but 'limit' has only a default, no description. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying recency ordering, so it neither compensates for the gap nor goes beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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 parenthetical states a specific verb+resource ('List entries the v0.11 relevance gate filtered into the quarantine layer') and differentiates it from siblings by noting these are not surfaced by mind_search by design. The front-loaded DEPRECATED/removal notice, however, is the dominant message, so the actual purpose is secondary rather than the opening statement.

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?

It names the replacement explicitly (mind_quarantine(action="list")) and gives a concrete trigger for using this tool (when you suspect a fact was filtered, e.g., the user keeps repeating low-signal content). The guidance is slightly self-contradictory, though: it tells the agent the tool is removed in v2.0 and to use another tool, then also tells it when to use this one.

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