direct_list_retargeting_lists

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

The only behavioral disclosure is the 'READ:' prefix, implying a non-destructive read operation. There is no mention of return format, pagination, scope, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations to supplement, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, and the 'READ' prefix is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of being cryptic; the phrase 'Metrika audience lists in cabinet' is vague and would benefit from elaboration without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, the description should provide more context. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how optional parameters affect results, or what 'cabinet' refers to, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 schema shows 'ids' (array of integers) and 'limit' (integer) with no descriptions, and the description adds no parameter explanations. It does not clarify what 'ids' refer to (e.g., retargeting list IDs) or how 'limit' controls pagination. With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but did 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?

The description clearly indicates a read operation ('READ') and the resource ('retargeting lists'), with the API method 'retargetinglists.get' providing specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'direct_list_audience_targets' by focusing on retargeting lists rather than audience targets, though 'Metrika audience lists in cabinet' is somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description mentions no context for selecting this tool over sibling tools like 'direct_list_audience_targets' or other list operations.

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