get_list

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

The description frames this as a retrieval operation, which is read-only in nature, but does not explicitly state it's non-destructive or address error handling, permissions, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and while 'Retrieve' implies a safe operation, it adds limited behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 composed of two short sentences and is front-loaded with the action. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first but does provide usage context, so there's no significant waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

This is a simple retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the purpose and usage but leaves out details like return value shape or behavior when the list does not exist. While the schema fills in parameter details, the description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description mentions 'by ID' which matches listId, but does not add meaning to fields or detailLevel parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a specific list' identified by ID. It also says 'detailed information' and 'comprehensive details', making the tool's function unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_board_lists, the 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from list-collection operations.

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 states 'Use this when you need comprehensive details about a particular list,' which is explicit usage guidance. However, it does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, so it only merits a 4.

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