create_list

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 describes the creation action and mentions that 'new columns are automatically added to the default view', which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what the return value contains (especially problematic with no output schema).

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place - the first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides important behavioral context about columns and default views. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has significant gaps. It explains what the tool creates and some behavioral aspects, but doesn't cover what happens on success/failure, what permissions are needed, or what the return value looks like. Given the complexity of the input schema (with nested column specifications), the description could do more to help an agent understand the full scope of this operation.

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 description adds meaningful context about parameters by mentioning 'optional columns and views' and specifying that 'columns are described using structured specs (type, choices, required, indexed, etc.)'. With 80% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description provides additional semantic understanding of how columns work beyond what's in the schema, particularly the relationship between columns and default views.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new SharePoint list or document library') with specific details about optional columns and views. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_list_from_xml' by emphasizing structured specs rather than XML, and from 'create_item' by focusing on list creation rather than item creation.

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 through the mention of 'optional columns and views' and the context of creating lists/libraries, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_list_from_xml' or 'create_item'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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