bsky_get_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets details' but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is minimal and fails to provide essential behavioral context for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the core function.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, with an output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral aspects like authentication needs, or how the output relates to the input. While the output schema exists, the description should still provide context on what 'details' entail and when to use this tool, which it fails to do adequately.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (list_uri, limit, cursor, acting_handle) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'list_uri' is, how 'limit' and 'cursor' affect pagination, or what 'acting_handle' does. This leaves parameters largely unexplained, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 '指定リストの詳細を取得します' (Get details of a specified list) clearly states the verb ('取得します' - get) and resource ('リスト' - list), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'bsky_get_lists' (which likely lists multiple lists) or explain what 'details' specifically means. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about what details are returned.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'bsky_get_lists' (for listing multiple lists) or 'bsky_get_profile' (which might include list information), nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication. Usage is implied only by the action of getting list details, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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