get_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does most of it: it discloses the return format, the own/shared visibility scope, and hard capability limits (no categories, no item notes, no list creation, no cross-list moves). It never explicitly states that the call is read-only/has no side effects, and says nothing about empty-state behavior, which is the remaining gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then the 'call this first' rule, then disambiguation, then capability limits. Four sentences, each doing distinct work with no repetition of the tool name or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the exact line format '[listId] name (private|shared) - N unchecked'. Combined with the mandatory-first-call rule and the capability exclusions, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead spends its space explaining the output line format, which is the only thing an agent must interpret here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every shopping list') plus the exact scope ('own and shared'), which is precisely what separates it from get_items and the mutation siblings. It even specifies the per-line return shape, so an agent knows what it will get before calling.

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?

Explicit sequencing rule: 'Call this first - every other tool needs a listId from here.' It also gives a disambiguation procedure ('match the user's wording... if more than one list could fit, ask which one') and tells the agent what to say when a requested capability is unsupported, which keeps the agent from hunting for nonexistent siblings.

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