get-tasklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a task list by ID', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), response format, or any rate limits. While it doesn't contradict annotations (there are none), it fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just four words ('Get a task list by ID'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is appropriate for a simple retrieval tool, though it may sacrifice helpful details for brevity.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'getting' returns (e.g., task list details, tasks within it, or metadata), error conditions, or how it fits into the broader task management workflow. While minimalism can work for very basic tools, this leaves gaps that could hinder effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'tasklist' documented as 'Task list ID'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or context about where to find IDs). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 'Get a task list by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('task list'), but it's quite basic and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-task' which follows a similar pattern. It specifies retrieval by ID, which provides some differentiation from list operations, but remains somewhat vague about what 'getting' entails beyond basic identification.

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 like 'list-tasklists' or 'get-task'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication or a valid task list ID), nor does it explain use cases where retrieving a single task list by ID is preferable to listing all task lists. This leaves the agent without contextual decision-making help.

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