list_smart_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the non-obvious default override (limit=100 instead of 10), explains the pagination pattern via _metadata, and clarifies offset vs cursor-based endpoints. This goes well beyond a bare 'list' statement, though it does not mention auth or full response shape.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the most decision-relevant behavioral details about defaults and pagination. Every sentence contributes to correct usage.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by mentioning _metadata and pagination, which are the main response-related details an agent needs. It is sufficient to invoke the tool and handle multi-page results, though a bit more about the overall return shape would make it fully complete.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the limit override, the pagination flow, and how offset/cursor arguments relate to response metadata. It does not add anything about all/fub2 or extraQuery, but the schema handles those adequately.

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 states the operation ('Get a list of Smart Lists') and the endpoint (GET /smartLists), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_smart_list, but the plural 'list' and resource name already differentiate it from that singular variant.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is useful, noting that 'bulk requests are the common case' and that limit defaults to 100 accordingly. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative, but the pagination instructions give usable direction for the common follow-up behavior.

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