Get a user's lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, satisfying safety concerns. The description adds the behavioral scope (user-created lists) and the response feature (game counts), providing some context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, sorting, or authentication defaults.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, easily readable at a glance. It is slightly under-specified but appropriately short for a tool of this 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return structure more fully. It only mentions game counts, leaving out pagination, sorting options, and the default-to-authenticated-user behavior. These gaps make the description incomplete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema coverage at 67%, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics. It doesn't clarify the sort enum or page usage, and the only parameter implication ('a user' referencing username) is already stated in the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented sort parameter.

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 resource being retrieved (a user's created lists) and mentions a key detail (game counts), effectively conveying the tool's purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_list or get_game_lists, but the scope ('created by a user') provides some distinction.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative tools. Usage must be inferred from the title and schema.

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