get_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The get_ prefix implies a read operation, but the description doesn't state what details are returned, which list fields to expect, whether the list must exist (error handling), or scoping constraints. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately concise for a simple single-parameter read tool, though it could benefit from a brief note on what details are returned without becoming verbose.

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 single-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'details' means - which list attributes the caller can expect. Among many sibling list/get tool combinations (get_lists, get_list_views, get_list_members, get_list_comments), more context on what specifically this returns (the list's own properties vs related data) would complete the picture.

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% for the single parameter (list_id), which is fully documented as 'The list ID'. The description adds some value by indicating the parameter identifies which list to fetch, but the tool name 'get_list' combined with the schema already makes this relationship fairly evident. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 'Get details of a specific list' which provides a verb+resource purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_lists, get_folderless_lists, get_list_views, or get_list_comments - all sibling tools that also relate to 'lists' but serve different purposes. The agent must infer from the name alone that get_list retrieves a single specific list by ID.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description gives no context about when to choose get_list over get_lists or get_folderless_lists, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools like get_lists and get_folderless_lists exist with clearly overlapping concepts, yet no differentiation is offered.

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