todo_list_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that nested subfolders are included, which is a behavioral detail beyond the schema. However, it omits read-only/safety context, permission requirements, and return format expectations for a list operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the target resource and scope.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could add a brief note on what the return values look like (e.g., list names and IDs), but the core purpose and scope are covered 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('task folders/lists') scoped to Outlook Tasks, with the additional detail of nested subfolders. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling task-listing tools like todo_list_tasks, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from todo_get_folders, so it falls short of a clear 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as todo_get_folders, todo_list_tasks, or todoist_list_projects. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but no when/when-not conditions are stated.

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