create_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that - no mention of duplicate-name handling, return value, or side effects - so it contributes no extra transparency.

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 single short sentence is waste-free and front-loaded, but at this length it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise. It uses its small footprint without earning much.

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 one-parameter creation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It omits any note about authentication or duplicate handling, leaving modest gaps for a simple operation.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ("列表名称"), the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"新建一个 To Do 列表" states a clear verb (新建) and resource (To Do 列表), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it is essentially a translation of the tool name create_list, adding no differentiation from the many sibling list/task tools, so it sits at minimum-viable rather than distinguishing.

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 alternatives such as add_task or list_lists, nor any noted prerequisites (e.g. that auth may be required given the login/auth_status siblings). The agent must infer all usage context.

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