get_shared_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description only restates the read nature ("[READ]") and the HTTP route, adding no behavior such as not-found handling, name matching rules, or what the response contains — notable since there is no output schema.

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?

Two short lines with the operation front-loaded and no filler prose. The "GET /api/node-plugins/shared-lists/by-name" fragment is mild duplication of the read annotation rather than information the agent needs, but it costs little.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description should say what a successful response looks like and what happens when the name is not found. Neither is present, leaving real gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the load. It only says the lookup is "by name"; it never explains that the schema pattern permits slash-separated path segments, whether matching is exact or case-sensitive, or what a valid shared-list name looks like.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get Shared List") and adds a scoping qualifier ("by name"), which distinguishes it from the collection-style sibling get_shared_lists. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

"by name" implies this is a single-item lookup keyed on an identifier, which is usable guidance against a list-all sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what to do if the name is unknown, and no named alternative.

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