mylar_lists_discovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description must handle behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose parameter-specific behaviors (e.g., customOnly='1', include_downloaded_issues='Y'). It also explicitly marks `mylar_add_story_arc` as 'Add/create', signaling mutation. Still, it does not give a high-level summary of which operations are read-only versus mutating, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 opens with a crisp one-line overview and invocation pattern, then uses a consistent bullet list for all seven operations. Each entry follows the same 'signature — explanation' format without redundancy or filler. Although the description is lengthy due to the number of operations, every sentence carries necessary information and is well-structured for scanning.

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?

The description covers all operations and their parameters, and an output schema exists to define return values, reducing that burden. The main gaps are the lack of explicit read-only vs mutation distinction (though inferable) and the misleading 'discovery' umbrella that doesn't fit the add operation. These minor omissions prevent perfect completeness for agent decision-making.

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 is minimal, with only `operation` and a generic `arguments` object (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It documents every operation's parameter signature, required vs optional arguments (e.g., storyarcname required when creating, id to extend), and explains the meaning of special flags. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema and enables correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool as handling Mylar3 list operations, enumerating all supported operations and their purposes. It differentiates from sibling tools by its 'lists' scope. However, the term 'discovery' is contradictory because `mylar_add_story_arc` is a mutation operation, not a read-only discovery, which slightly weakens clarity.

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 implies usage by providing the invocation pattern ('Pass `operation` and an `arguments` dict...') and listing all operations, which tells an agent exactly what actions are possible. However, it offers no explicit comparison to sibling tools, no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites or context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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