list_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'list all' without indicating read-only nature, return format, pagination, or any side effects. It does not add any context beyond what the schema already provides for parameters, and does not disclose how filters affect the result set.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple listing operation.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core purpose and implies the result is a list of insights. While it could mention that it respects optional filters, this is already in the schema. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately contextual.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (tags and connection), each with its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain parameter interplay or provide examples.

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 description uses a specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'all stored business insights and analysis notes'. It clearly conveys the tool's function and is unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from the sibling 'append_insight' which is for adding, so no confusion about its role.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to retrieve insights) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on comparing with other list tools (e.g., list_connections) or on prerequisites. The function is obvious enough, but lacks explicit usage notes.

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