scm_get_external_dynamic_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 states the tool is for 'Get' (implying read-only), but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, what happens on invalid UUID, rate limits, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, permissions) and output format, which are critical for a read operation with undocumented parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'edl_id' is explained as 'UUID of the external dynamic list', and 'tsg_id' as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default value. This clarifies purpose and usage beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail UUID format or TSG alias examples.

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 a single external dynamic list') and resource ('by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scm_list_external_dynamic_lists' (plural) and 'scm_create_external_dynamic_list' (creation). It precisely defines the scope as retrieving a single item using a unique identifier.

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 context by specifying 'by UUID' and listing parameters, suggesting it's for retrieving a known specific list rather than browsing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'scm_list_external_dynamic_lists' or prerequisites such as authentication needs.

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