List Task Lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the useful fact that results carry id and title and that the id is the join key for siblings, but it says nothing about pagination or result caps despite exposing a page_token and a 100-item limit.

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?

Two sentences plus a short example, with the core action front-loaded and every element earning its place. Nothing is repeated from the schema or 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?

For a zero-required-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the cross-tool linkage. Only pagination behavior is unaddressed, a minor omission given page_token's own schema description.

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%, so limit, page_token, and response_format are each documented in the schema itself and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about when to raise the limit or how to page, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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?

"List the user's Google Tasks lists" gives a specific verb and resource, and "(id and title)" discloses what comes back, which cleanly separates it from gtasks_list_tasks and gtasks_get_task. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the resource distinction is unambiguous.

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 supplies a concrete trigger example ("what lists do I have?") and explains the downstream usage of the returned id as list_id in the other tools, which is strong chaining guidance. It offers no when-not conditions or note on when to re-fetch versus cache, so it falls short of a 5.

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