list_intents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral details: ordering (newest first) and a row cap (Max 500 rows). It also clarifies the data source (intents table). No contradictions with annotations, and the added traits are relevant to invocation expectations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (List recent user prompts) and then efficiently adds ordering, filters, and a limit. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is quite complete. It states the action, data source, sorting, filters, and a row limit. It does not describe the return format (e.g., fields of each prompt), but that is not critical for a straightforward read-only list. The absence of pagination details is mitigated by the limit parameter. Overall, an agent can call it correctly with the given information.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It explicitly covers 'project' and 'session_id' via 'Filter by project and/or session', giving meaning to those string fields. However, the 'limit' parameter is not clearly explained; the mention of 'Max 500 rows' appears to be a cap, but the relationship to the limit parameter (which defaults to 50) is ambiguous. Partial compensation for missing schema descriptions, but not complete.

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 clearly states the action (List), the resource (recent user prompts from the intents table), ordering (newest first), and optional filters. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like search_intents, which implies a search-oriented purpose. No ambiguity in what the tool does.

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 provides filtering options (by project and/or session) but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_intents, memory_timeline, or save_intent. There is no mention of when not to use it or any conditions that would make another tool more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the action of listing recent prompts.

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