get_user_lists

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only public lists are returned, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or whether any output is paginated or summarized.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place, though it could be enriched without becoming bloated given the absence of schema descriptions and annotations.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It omits practical details such as what each parameter controls, whether username is effectively required, and what the response structure looks like.

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 description adds only a minimal hint that the username identifies the Discogs user. The page and perPage parameters are completely unexplained in terms of behavior, defaults, or relationship to pagination.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('a Discogs user's public lists'). It clearly distinguishes the tool's core purpose from siblings like get_list and get_collection, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites such as authentication. The description only states what the tool does, not the context of use.

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