List ideas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the board scoping, and says nothing about pagination (implied by after/first), result limits, or ordering — the behaviors an agent actually needs beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication of the needed detail.

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 paginated list tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail about returns, the description is too thin. It should at least explain pagination and what an 'idea' listing contains.

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% across 3 parameters (after, first, organizationId), and the description mentions none of them. It does not clarify that after/first are pagination cursors/limits or what organizationId defaults to, leaving all parameter meaning undocumented.

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) and resource (ideas) with a scope qualifier ('in the organization's idea board'). This distinguishes it adequately from buffer_list_idea_groups and buffer_create_idea, though it does not call those siblings out by name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the adjacent siblings buffer_list_idea_groups or buffer_create_idea, and no prerequisites or context described. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the resource noun.

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