lists_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination parameters but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, or what happens when no lists exist. The description is minimal on behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each section earns its place, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more informative given the output schema exists.

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 the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage but an output schema exists, the description compensates somewhat by documenting parameters. However, for a tool with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context like safety, permissions, or error handling, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, but the description explicitly documents both parameters (page and per_page) with brief explanations. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles, though it doesn't provide format details or constraints. With 2 parameters fully mentioned, this meets the baseline for adequate coverage.

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 'Get all saved lists in Apollo' which specifies the verb (get) and resource (saved lists) with scope (all). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_create' or 'list_add_contacts', but the purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it retrieves all saved lists, there's no mention of when to use this versus other list-related tools like 'list_create' or 'list_add_contacts' in the sibling set.

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