list_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms this is a retrieval operation but says nothing about return format, whether the list is paginated or bounded, or what happens when no filters are supplied — all relevant for a list tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and appends the filtering capability. No filler, though the terseness contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain enough about the returned collection and filter semantics to call the tool correctly. It covers purpose and filter names but leaves return shape, pagination, and empty-result behavior unspecified for a two-parameter list tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps both parameters by naming the filter dimensions 主题 (subject) and 类型 (insight_type), but it gives no accepted values, casing, or format for either, and insight_type has no enum to fall back on, leaving ambiguity.

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?

列出已保存的设计洞察/学习卡片 states a clear verb (列出) and resource (设计洞察/学习卡片), and explicitly marks the read operation, which distinguishes it from the write sibling save_insight. It stops short of naming any sibling directly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

支持按主题或类型过滤 implies the filtering use case and hints at two query modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the save_insight/capture_idea siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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