list_shopping_lists

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 'List all' but does not disclose pagination behavior, even though the input schema includes page and perPage parameters. The phrase 'all' could mislead an agent into thinking every shopping list is returned at once, while the default perPage=50 suggests otherwise. It also omits result format, sort order, or any operational details.

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 that is direct and front-loaded with the key action and resource. There is no filler or redundant content. Every word serves the purpose of identifying what the tool does.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description could be minimal. However, the absence of an output schema and the lack of any mention of pagination in the description leaves an important gap. The agent may not know that the default page size is 50 or that results are paginated, which is especially relevant given the phrase 'all' in the description.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (page and perPage) with defaults, accounting for 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema is self-explanatory, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No further compensation is needed.

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 ('List all') and the resource ('shopping lists in Mealie'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_recipes, list_foods, list_categories, and list_tags because it specifically targets shopping lists. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to select this tool when the goal is to retrieve shopping lists.

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 usage is implied: use it when you need to list shopping lists. However, there is no explicit guidance distinguishing it from alternatives such as get_shopping_list for retrieving a single list, or add_shopping_list_item for modifying lists. No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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