bsky_add_to_list

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 mentions authentication requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe other critical traits: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'adds'), what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output contains. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 is extremely concise - a single sentence in Japanese that states the action and authentication requirement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient despite its 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 this is a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is insufficient. While the output schema may cover return values, the description lacks crucial context: parameter explanations, behavioral details beyond authentication, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a tool that adds users to lists in a social platform, more guidance is needed.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about the three parameters (subject_did, list_uri, acting_handle), their meanings, formats, or examples. It doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameters semantically undefined.

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 the verb ('追加します' - adds) and resource ('ユーザーをリストに' - user to list), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bsky_remove_from_list' by indicating addition rather than removal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list-related tools like 'bsky_create_list' or 'bsky_get_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 includes a prerequisite ('要認証' - requires authentication), which provides some context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bsky_remove_from_list' or other list management tools. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives for different scenarios.

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