get_lists

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

The description transparently details the source (numbering.xml), output format, and the empty return scenario. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it is informative but could mention read-only nature.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and quickly convey the output format and edge case. No superfluous words.

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 parameters and that an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. It could mention that it is a read operation, but the context signals (readOnlyHint not present but understood) make it complete enough.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.

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 it returns all list definitions from numbering.xml, specifies the entry structure, and notes the empty return case. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_list or create_multilevel_list which modify lists.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_styles or add_list. Usage is implied by the purpose, but lacking explicit when-not or alternative tool recommendations.

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