x_list_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds valuable safety context by warning that list names and descriptions are third-party text to be treated as data, not instructions, and it explains the raw parameter's effect on the response envelope.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: purpose first, then raw-mode behavior, then the security caveat. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema, full parameter documentation, and safety annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps: the precise metadata fields returned, the raw-mode option, and the third-party content warning. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, with both list_id and raw already documented in the input schema. The description's mention of 'raw: true' largely restates the schema, adding only the phrase 'uncompacted API envelope,' so it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding.

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 starts with a specific verb and object: 'read one list's metadata'. It enumerates the exact fields returned, including name, description, privacy, counts, and owner handle, which clearly defines the tool's scope. This also differentiates it from siblings like x_list_timeline (posts) and x_list_members (members).

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 purpose statement makes the use case clear: retrieve metadata for a single list identified by list_id. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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