opencdr_lists_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" merely repeats structured data and adds no value. Nothing is said about error behavior for unknown list_ids, result size, or how pagination works (openWorldHint hints at variability but is left unexplained).

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?

Two terse fragments with no wasted words and purpose is front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what a "list's values" look like (shape, size, ordering) and it does not. For a retrieval tool keyed on an undocumented identifier, this leaves the agent guessing.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains what a list_id is, its format, or how to obtain one. With the schema silent, the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

"Show a list's values" names a specific verb (show/retrieve) and resource (a list's values), which is distinguishable from opencdr_lists_list (enumerate lists) and from the rules_* siblings. It stops short of stating whether this returns raw items or list metadata plus items, but the core intent is clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required list_id suggests it is called once an ID is known, implying opencdr_lists_list is the discovery step. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, nor a named alternative.

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