listInsights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the read-only nature, the default filter, the sort order (most-confident first), and what each row contains. It stops short of stating permission requirements or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded with purpose and default, then alternatives, then sibling pairings — a logical order. The parenthetical about citation format is slightly dense but still earns its place by clarifying output shape.

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 read-only list tool with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: default behavior, state alternatives, ordering, and the sibling workflow. No gaps remain.

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% and the state enum is fully documented in the schema, so the description's restatement of state values adds little. It does reinforce the default and the ordering, but limit and scopes semantics come entirely from 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) plus resource (synthesized insights) and scope (by lifecycle state), and explicitly frames itself as 'the Insight Inbox read surface', distinguishing it from get, dismissInsight, and triggerReflection.

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?

Names the default behavior (hot insights), gives the exact escape hatches for other states (state=demoted/dismissed/all), and routes to the correct siblings for inspecting, dismissing, and generating insights. Nothing is left to inference.

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