get_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or any side effects. This is a minimal level of 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds meaning, making it appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description gives the essential idea: it fetches a list and its entries. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits details such as what the returned data looks like, whether entries are paginated, and how this relates to other list-oriented tools. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what listId means and how it is used. It does not mention listId at all, and while 'a Discogs list' loosely implies the resource, the description provides little added meaning beyond the parameter name and type already in the schema.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('a Discogs list and its entries'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_user_lists, which also deals with Discogs lists, so it misses the top score.

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 get_user_lists or get_collection. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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