add_list

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a modification action but omits whether existing list formatting is replaced, how nested lists are handled, or if any permissions are required. While the purpose is clear, the lack of detail on side effects or constraints lowers transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, though it could include additional context without becoming verbose. Every word serves a purpose, but the structure is not enhanced with bullets or formatting.

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 has required array parameters, an output schema (not shown), and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, updated paragraph objects) or any prerequisites (e.g., document must be open). The lack of context for a modification tool with multiple parameters is a significant gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'style' parameter by specifying 'bullet or numbered', but does not explain 'para_ids' (required, array of paragraph identifiers) or 'document_handle'. The schema itself provides default values but no enums or formats, leaving ambiguity about valid inputs.

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 verb 'Apply list formatting' and the resource 'paragraphs', specifying the two available formats (bullet or numbered). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_multilevel_list' or 'demote_list_item', which handle different list operations.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to choose between bullet and numbered styles. For example, it does not contrast with 'create_multilevel_list' or explain when to use this tool over directly applying a style.

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