get_list_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves comprehensive schema details, which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state permissions required, rate limits, or response format. It adds some context about supported list types, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or output structure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and scope. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and details, the second specifies applicability, with no wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a read operation but incomplete. It covers what the tool does and its scope, but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or prerequisites. For a tool with no structured output, more guidance on return values would improve completeness.

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 the single parameter 'listName' documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying format (e.g., case sensitivity) or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides full parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Get the full schema') and resource ('of a list or library'), with detailed scope ('all columns, all views, and list metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it works on both lists and document libraries, unlike tools like 'get_views' or 'get_list_schema_xml'.

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 provides clear context by stating when to use it ('Works on both lists and document libraries'), which implicitly distinguishes it from tools like 'get_views' (views only) or 'get_list_schema_xml' (XML format). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as 'get_list_schema_xml' for XML output.

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