list_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create a new list' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names. The return statement is minimal and doesn't describe the structure or content of 'Created list details'.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return information. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero wasted words, and the information is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 that this is a creation/mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides adequate basic information but lacks important contextual details. It covers the what and basic parameters but misses behavioral context like permissions, idempotency, and error conditions that would be important for a write operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantic context for both parameters: it explains that 'name' is the list name and 'modality' defines the list type with specific allowed values ('contacts', 'people', or 'static') and a default. This compensates somewhat for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't fully explain the implications of each modality choice.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('a new list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling list-related tools like 'lists_get' or 'list_add_contacts', which would require more specific scope definition.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'lists_get' (likely for reading lists) and 'list_add_contacts' (likely for modifying existing lists), there's no indication of when creation is appropriate versus retrieval or modification, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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