get_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-data profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail that each item's comment is included, but it does not mention pagination, authentication needs, or 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 a single front-loaded phrase with no wasted text. It is appropriately brief for a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, though the sentence fragment omits an explicit verb.

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 tool with an undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: it does not explain list_id, return format, pagination, or how this differs from get_user_lists. An agent could infer basic intent but would still need to inspect the schema and experiment to invoke it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter list_id is not explained in the description. The phrase 'in a Discogs list' implies a list identifier exists, but it adds no format, constraints, or meaning beyond the bare schema field.

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 identifies the resource as items in a Discogs list and notes that each item includes its comment. It is clear enough to distinguish from get_user_lists, which returns lists rather than list items, though it does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools.

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 get_list versus alternatives such as get_user_lists. The description does not state prerequisites, when-not conditions, or the relationship between fetching lists and fetching items within a list.

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