get-task-lists-organized

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes the grouping logic (naming patterns, emoji prefixes, sharing status) and the hierarchical output, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or potential limitations of the heuristics. For a read list operation, this is partially adequate but lacks some safety/caveat context.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Get all task lists'), and includes the key behavior (organized/folder-like). No filler or redundant details, appropriate size for the tool's complexity.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the primary function and grouping inputs. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling 'get-task-lists' and does not detail the return structure, but the provided information is sufficient for a basic read-oriented listing tool.

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 coverage is 100% (both groupBy and includeIds have descriptions), which establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that 'category' grouping is based on naming patterns and emoji prefixes, and 'shared' relates to sharing status. However, it does not clarify the 'type' enum value beyond the schema's own description, so it adds value but not comprehensively.

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 tool retrieves all task lists and organizes them into logical folders/categories based on naming patterns, emoji prefixes, and sharing status. This specific verb+resource+unique organizational behavior distinguishes it from the sibling 'get-task-lists' tool.

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 use when a hierarchical, organized view of task lists is desired, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like plain get-task-lists, nor does it state when not to use. It provides implied usage but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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