get_lists_in_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral transparency. It implies a read-only operation by describing it as listing data, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not 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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action and output, the second provides a practical usage. Every phrase adds value.

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 simple list-fetching tool, the description covers the purpose, output fields, and usage context. The parameters are well-documented in the schema. No output schema exists, but the description states the return fields (id, name, task count). The tool is low complexity, and the description is sufficiently 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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (folder_id and archived), resulting in 100% schema coverage. The description adds the context of using folder_id to discover list_ids, but does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List all Lists inside a Folder') and the returned data (id, name, task count). It also includes a specific use case ('discover a list_id within a Folder'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_list or get_folderless_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 provides a clear usage context ('Use to discover a list_id within a Folder'). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, such as find_list_by_name for filtering by name.

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