list_lists

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 returns data (name, id, type, item count), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in transparency for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds return details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for a simple tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance, which could be useful for an agent. However, for a straightforward list operation, it is sufficient.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents the 'includeHidden' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about parameters beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately.

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 ('List all lists and document libraries'), identifies the resource ('SharePoint site'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing rather than creating, deleting, or modifying lists. It explicitly mentions what is returned (name, id, type, item count), making the purpose 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 implies usage for retrieving lists and libraries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_list_schema' or 'get_views'. It provides some context by mentioning what is returned, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, such as whether it requires specific permissions or site access.

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