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. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /api/node-plugins/shared-lists/:name), which is minor, but says nothing about not-found/error behavior or response shape for a lookup-by-key tool.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. The endpoint line is mildly redundant given the read annotation but is compact and harmless.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could usefully describe the returned shared-list object but does not. For a simple single-resource getter this is adequate-but-thin, leaving the agent to infer both error behavior and return format.

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 schema documents only type constraints (pattern, length) with no meaning. The description's 'by name' does clarify that the lone parameter is the shared list's name, partially compensating, but adds no format, case-sensitivity, or resolution detail beyond that.

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+resource ('Get Shared List') and narrows scope with 'by name', so the agent knows this retrieves a single shared list rather than a collection. It does not, however, name or contrast with the obvious sibling get_shared_lists, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_shared_lists (the plural collection tool) or what happens if the name does not exist. The 'by name' phrasing hints at single-item retrieval but no condition or alternative is stated.

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