List Boardroom ideas

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

No annotations are provided, so description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sorting by score and optional filtering, but does not disclose pagination, return format, or the existence of the limit parameter. The description is minimal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then optional filter, then required param. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given the low complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the main functionality but omits limit parameter and return format. With no output schema, more detail on return values would be expected.

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 description must compensate. It explains agent_id (required) and status (filter), but does not mention limit parameter at all. For a 3-param tool, it covers 2 out of 3, adding some value beyond 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?

Description clearly states what it does: returns ideas for the tenant, sorted by score (upvotes minus downvotes) descending, with optional status filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_idea and update_idea by being the listing operation.

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?

Description provides context: agent_id is required, and status filter is optional. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_actionable_todos or search_ideas (if exists).

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