List all To Do lists by group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions side effects: 'refreshes the group mapping and reports any renamed or deleted lists.' This adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description adds value but is not fully comprehensive.

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 three short sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third explains additional behavior. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of context. It covers purpose, usage, and side effects, but does not describe the output format (e.g., list names, IDs, group structure). For a listing tool, omitting return structure leaves a gap for the agent to understand what data to expect.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids extraneous information.

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 explicitly states it lists all Microsoft To Do lists organized by group/folder. The verb 'list' and resource 'To Do lists' are specific, and the title reinforces the purpose. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like todo_get_tasks by focusing on 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 description directly tells when to use: 'Use when the user asks what lists they have, or to disambiguate a list name.' This provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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