reference_lists

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 says 'query' which hints at read-only, but doesn't explicitly state that it returns a list of reference lists or that it has no side effects. It also doesn't mention pagination behavior, error conditions, or the effect of the customer_slug override. The example adds some clarity about filtering/ordering but leaves the return format and other behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 very brief—two sentence fragments and an example. It front-loads the core purpose ('query referenceLists') and then provides the most useful supplementary detail (the variables and example). No waste, but it is so terse that it borders on under-specification. Still, for what it includes, it is efficiently structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't. It also omits any explanation of the customer_slug parameter, which is not shown in the variable list or example. Given the presence of nested filter/order objects and a missing output description, the tool description is incomplete and leaves several gaps.

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 schema only provides GraphQL type names (e.g., 'GraphQL: ReferenceListFilter'), which are not meaningful. The description compensates by listing the variables and giving a concrete JSON example that reveals the structure of the 'filter' object (dataTagging, queryReference, search) and 'order' object (direction, orderBy). This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema, though the meaning of individual fields (e.g., dataTagging) is still not explained.

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 'query referenceLists', which identifies a read operation on a plural resource, distinguishing it from the many mutation tools (create/update/delete). The plural name and the presence of pagination variables imply a list query. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the singular 'reference_list' tool, which likely fetches a single list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'reference_list' (singular) or the create/update/delete operations. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool is preferred. The only signal is the plural name and the query verb, which is implicit at best.

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