list_checklists

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors beyond the schema: output_format variants ('full', 'compact', 'summary'), the page_size maximum of 1000, and the save_to_file side effect of writing a temp file and returning its path. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read/list tool this is sufficient.

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 well-structured and efficient: a one-line summary, an aligned Args section, and a Returns note. Every line carries useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: all parameters are explained, output_format defaults and options are given, save_to_file behavior is described, and the return type is stated. The only notable gap is sibling-tool routing guidance, which is captured in its own dimension.

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%, so the description must compensate fully, and it does: every parameter is documented (organization_id, completed, assignee_id, checklist_template_id, include_tasks, page, page_size, output_format, save_to_file). It adds concrete allowed values for output_format and a max constraint for page_size.

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 first sentence is a clear verb+resource statement: 'List checklists from IT Glue.' The parameter list further clarifies that this is a general listing/filtering tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_checklist or list_incomplete_checklists, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 implies usage through the available filters (organization_id, completed, assignee_id, checklist_template_id), but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_incomplete_checklists or get_organization_checklists. There are no explicit when/when-not or alternative-mentioning guidelines.

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