List task lists

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds concrete behavioral details beyond that: returned fields, RFC3339 format, page_size cap/default at 1000, page_token chaining, and the absence of search or ordering. It even states 'one call usually returns everything,' which helps the agent decide whether to paginate.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler. The key result fields and entry-point role are front-loaded, followed by pagination details and API limitations. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only list call with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers return fields, pagination, default-list alias, and API limitations. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational context not in the schema: page_token comes from nextPageToken, page_size caps at 1000, the API default is already 1000, and one call usually returns everything. This is useful but not a dramatic expansion beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb and resource: 'Lists the user's task lists: id, title, updated (RFC3339)'. It also frames the tool as the entry point for task tools, distinguishing it from task-specific siblings like list_tasks and get_tasklist.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'task tools need a tasklist_id from here' and mentions the '@default' alias. It also states when-not-to-expect more: 'The API has no search or ordering — filter client-side,' and explains pagination defaults so the agent knows one call usually suffices.

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