superchat_list_contact_lists

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: each call returns only one page, results contain only metadata, and pagination uses after/before cursors. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, result contents and alternative, and pagination behavior. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.

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?

The description explains the result content, pagination model, and the relevant sibling alternative. It does not spell out the exact response envelope, but the schema's cursor descriptions and the tool's simple read-only nature make the definition sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already defines after, before, and limit precisely. The description reinforces that after/before continue from a previous page and that only one page is returned, which adds some context but does not substantially expand on the parameter definitions.

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 ('List one page of contact lists') and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_contact_lists_for_contact by noting it returns list metadata rather than contact memberships. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use list_contact_lists_for_contact when needing a contact's memberships, and explains when to use the after/before pagination parameters. This gives an agent clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate and when to select an alternative.

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