get_task_list

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context — and it adds essentially none: no behavior on an unknown/expired ID, no note that only list metadata (not its tasks) comes back, no auth notes. 'Exact' only echoes the constraint already stated in the schema.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and scope, with zero redundant or filler content.

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?

Rich annotations plus an output schema plus a fully documented single parameter mean little prose is required, and the description covers the essentials of a simple getter. A one-clause contrast with the list/search siblings would have closed the remaining gap.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented there, including the 'names are not IDs' caveat, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the exact-ID semantics but contributes no new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Read one task list'), so an agent can distinguish it from list_task_lists or delete_task_list by the singular 'one'. It never names a sibling or explicitly rules out alternatives, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its exact Google ID' suggests a lookup of an ID obtained elsewhere, but the description never says when to prefer this over list_task_lists or get_task, nor what to do when only a name is known (that hint lives in the schema, not the description).

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