get-site-list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as permission requirements, return shape, or pagination, but for a simple read operation the annotations carry most of the burden.

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 six-word sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail. It front-loads the action and resource immediately.

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 read tool with two IDs, a non-destructive annotation set, and a single known resource, the description is largely sufficient. It could add a note about what is returned or how it differs from listing lists, but those are minor omissions for this level of complexity.

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 100%, so the parameters are at least documented. The description adds the shared semantic that both parameters together identify the target list, which is mildly useful, but it does not explain the relationship between siteId and listId or the expected format beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a SharePoint list'), and the identifying mechanism ('by id'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list-site-lists (enumerating lists) and get-site-list-item (getting an item within a list) without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Usage context is only implied: use this when you have a siteId and listId. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer list-site-lists or get-site-list-item instead, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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