Get Contact List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that the response includes member count, but does not disclose other behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the primary safety trait, the description adds moderate value.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or redundancy.

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 one parameter fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the key output detail (member count). However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return value (e.g., 'returns contact list object with name, ID, slug, and member count'). With strong schema coverage and annotations, this is adequate.

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% (one parameter 'idOrSlug' with description 'The list ID (UUID) or slug'). The description merely repeats this by saying 'by ID or slug', adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics fully.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('a contact list'), and the method ('by ID or slug'). It adds specificity by mentioning 'including member count', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'neuron_list_contact_lists' (list all) and 'neuron_get_contact_list_members' (list members).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a contact list ID or slug and need member count) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives such as 'neuron_list_contact_lists' for listing all lists or 'neuron_get_contact_list_members' for getting members.

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