paymo_list_tasklists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation with 'List', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention potential performance costs when querying across all projects. The schema's warning about expensive large listings is not echoed in the description.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the action and resource, and the parenthetical clarification efficiently disambiguates the term 'tasklists'.

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?

For a simple list tool, the purpose and scoping are clear, but with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves gaps around return values and operational risks (e.g., large result sets when project_id is unset). The rich schema descriptions partially compensate, but the description itself is minimal.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for project_id by noting 'across all tasks when unset', but the schema already states 'Restrict to a single project', so the added value is minimal.

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 'List' and the resource 'tasklists (columns)', and adds scoping detail ('for a project, or across all tasks when unset'). This distinguishes it from siblings like paymo_list_tasks and paymo_list_projects, which target different resources.

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 implies usage context by explaining the project scoping option, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools are visible but not referenced, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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