mdl_custom_lists_get_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether a missing/invalid list yields an error, whether private lists are accessible, or what the response contains. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added context is still a gap.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded fragment with zero padding. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, but the structure itself is clean.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what 'detail' returns (list metadata, items, votes, owner) and how list_id is sourced. Neither is present, so an agent cannot predict the result shape or confidently select this tool over the sibling list endpoints.

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 0%: the single required parameter list_id has only structural constraints (positive integer or 1-128 char slug) and no explanation of what identifier it expects or where to obtain it. The description does not compensate at all, leaving the only argument semantically undocumented.

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 names a resource (Custom Lists) and an action (get detail), so it is not pure noise. However, 'get detail' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and gives no scope for what 'detail' contains, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like mdl_custom_lists_get_user_lists or mdl_custom_lists_popular without reading the 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other custom-list retrieval tools (user_lists, popular, trending, featured, recent_activity, get_votes). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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