list-todo-task-lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: $select is NOT supported (Graph returns 400) and that the list 'typically' has a default list. This goes beyond annotations and helps avoid misusing the select parameter, showing transparency.

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 minimal: one clear purpose sentence, a useful tip, and a critical note. It is front-loaded with the primary function, and every sentence adds value (the tip indicates the returned id's role, the note warns about a common failure). No filler 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?

Given 11 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and usage. It doesn't detail return structure (e.g., whether it's a list of objects or pagination envelope), but the parameter descriptions handle pagination and the read-only annotation covers safety. It tells the agent the id is essential for subsequent operations, which is critical context. Slight lack of explicit mention of the response shape, but acceptable.

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?

All 11 parameters have extensive schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter semantics burden. The description itself adds only one parameter-related note (the $select unsupported warning), which is useful but marginal. Baseline 3 applies because the schema is comprehensive; the description doesn't need to compensate.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Get a list of the todoTaskList objects and their properties') and clarifies it returns the id needed for all task operations. It distinguishes from sibling 'list-todo-tasks' by explicitly targeting task lists, and notes the default list name 'Tasks'. No ambiguity.

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 explains it lists all To Do task lists and that returned ids are prerequisites for task operations, giving clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is so self-evident that alternatives are implied. Slight gap in not stating when to choose this over create/update/delete variants, but adequate.

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