list_import_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discharges part of it by noting that credentials are redacted, a genuinely useful output behavior. 'List' also implies a read-only, non-mutating call, so no destructive behavior needs disclaiming.

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?

One front-loaded sentence: 'List import lists' leads, then field detail and the redaction caveat. No 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?

For a parameterless list tool, the description names the fields returned and the only notable output caveat (redacted credentials). With no input schema requirements or output schema to reconcile, this is adequate for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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 has zero parameters and the schema fully defines this (coverage 100%), so parameter documentation is trivially satisfied. There is nothing missing that the description needed to compensate for.

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 ('List') and resource ('import lists') and enumerates the data fields returned (monitor mode, root folder, quality profile, sync settings), so an agent can tell this is a read-only enumeration tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling test_import_lists, but the name and scope make 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?

Provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over test_import_lists or the movie/indexer listing endpoints, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and purpose.

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