accelo_list_checklists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the scope constraint (tasks only) and the domain model (items can be marked complete). It does not state pagination behavior beyond the schema default, whether the operation is safe/read-only, or what the response looks like.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then domain context, then a compact Args block. Every element earns its place; only the leading purpose repeats the tool name, which is minor.

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 4-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the domain framing, the scope limitation, and full parameter documentation. The main remaining gap is return-value shape, which is only marginally needed given the absence of an output schema.

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, and it largely does: it enumerates the filter keys (id, against_id, against_type, created_by, date_created_before/after, order_by_asc/desc), describes fields, and notes page is 0-indexed and limit caps at 100. It stops short of examples or type/format details for the filter values.

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 and resource ('List checklists from Accelo') and adds domain context that checklists are to-do lists attached to tasks. This separates it from get_checklist, count_checklists, and the create/update/delete siblings, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 note 'Currently only supported against tasks' implies a usage constraint, which is helpful. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus accelo_get_checklist or accelo_count_checklists, so the agent must infer the choice from the verb alone.

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