タスクリスト一覧

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotation: it scopes to the authenticated account's tasklists and indicates that the returned IDs are meant to be passed on to other tools. This tells the agent the output is a set of tasklists with IDs, which is useful for chaining. No additional risk or side-effect info is needed given the read-only nature.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main function (list tasklists) and immediately followed by the practical usage hint about tasklist IDs. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. The structure is exemplary.

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 read-only list tool with pagination params already documented in the schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose (getting IDs for other tools) and the scope (authenticated account's tasklists). The main omission is a description of the return format (e.g., fields of each tasklist), but the read-only hint and the explicit mention of tasklist IDs cover the essential expectations. Very close to complete.

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% (both pageToken and maxResults have descriptions in Japanese). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but that's unnecessary because the schema fully documents them. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb (一覧する/list) and resource (タスクリスト/tasklists), and clarifies the account scope (認証中のアカウントが持つ). It also explains the purpose of the output (tasklist ID for other tools), which distinguishes it from siblings like get-tasklist (which fetches a single one) and create/update/delete operations. 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?

The description gives clear context on when to use this tool: to obtain tasklist IDs for other tools. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the sibling list and the tasklist ID hint make it obvious this is the collection-list operation, not a single-get or mutation. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when to pick this over the others.

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