list_cue_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the returned fields (metadata, cue count, duration estimate, loop setting) in lieu of a nonexistent output schema, and notes the payload is lightweight with no pagination. It omits any permission/auth or ordering context, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized returns/exclusions/use-cases in scannable blocks. Slightly padded by the redundant use-case list and the self-promotional 'most efficient way' claim, but nothing meaningfully wasteful.

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?

For a read-only list tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what comes back, what does not, where to go for the excluded data, and that result sets are small. No material gap remains for correct invocation.

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 100% for the single projectId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for projectId, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (cue lists) scoped to a project, and explicitly names what it does not return, routing to get_cue_list_details and get_look. An agent can distinguish it from the many sibling list/cue tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit exclusions (individual cues, look details) with the alternative tool for each, plus concrete use-case phrases that map directly to user intents. Also states no pagination is needed, removing an ambiguity an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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