Get favorites

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

With no output schema present, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it enumerates the favorite object fields, notes per-item error entries, and lists count/total/offset/hasMore pagination fields. It also flags the localization trap, the default limit of 500, and that includeSettings is slower — context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations.

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-loads purpose, then output contract, then the localization caveat and the includeSettings sequencing tip. Dense and information-rich, though the mid-sentence output enumeration is long enough that it takes a careful read.

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 9-parameter, no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract, the pagination fields, the localization constraint on names, and the key includeSettings interaction. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning: with includeSettings the settings 'use the same field names as get_tool_defaults and the create_* tools,' which is not derivable from the schema. It also implies the type/search/folder filters should be applied before includeSettings for efficiency.

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 and resource ('Lists the favorites') and immediately defines what a favorite is ('saved tool settings of the Favorites palette'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool_defaults and create_favorite. An agent can tell it apart from get_tool_defaults without opening either 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 actionable context: 'Favorite names are localized — always take them from here' and 'Filter by type/search/folder before using includeSettings' (a performance-driven sequencing rule). It also points to get_tool_defaults for variations. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as export_favorites or apply_favorite.

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