bsky_create_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 ('要認証'), which is useful context. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'create' but not explicit), what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is too sparse for a tool that creates resources.

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 with 7 Japanese characters. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness; while structurally efficient, it may be too terse for effective tool selection.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description lacks crucial context about authentication scope, parameter meanings, and behavioral expectations. It meets minimum viability but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description provides no information about any of the 4 parameters (name, purpose, description, acting_handle). It doesn't explain what 'name' represents, what 'purpose' options exist (though schema shows a default), or how 'acting_handle' affects the operation. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('新しいリストを作成します' - creates a new list) and resource (list), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like bsky_delete_list (deletion) and bsky_get_list (retrieval). However, it doesn't specify what type of list or platform context beyond the tool name hinting at Bluesky.

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 minimal guidance with '要認証' (requires authentication), indicating a prerequisite. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bsky_get_lists (for viewing) or bsky_add_to_list (for modifying existing lists), nor does it mention any exclusions or specific contexts for creation.

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