create_list_readrequest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this tool initiates an asynchronous multi-step process requiring polling and cleanup. This adds significant behavioral context beyond a simple creation. However, it does not specify auth requirements, rate limits, or consequences of not cleaning up.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and condition, the second lists the lifecycle. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded effectively.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete lifecycle context and references sibling tools for subsequent steps. It could be improved by explicitly stating the return value (request ID), but the lifecycle implies it.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts a large volume list read for lists too large for get_list_items, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_list_items. It also outlines the lifecycle steps, making the purpose very clear.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool (for large lists) and differentiates from get_list_items. It also provides a lifecycle sequence (create, poll, download, cleanup) which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond get_list_items.

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