get_list

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('ver'), but with no annotations to confirm, the agent must infer safety. No details on side effects, permissions, or response format are given. The mention of a specific list name is misleading.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It contains a likely error (specific name) and does not front-load key details. Brevity alone does not make it effective.

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 no output schema, annotations, and only one parameter, the description should at least clarify the return value (e.g., list details, success flag) and any special behavior. It fails to do so, leaving the agent guessing. Context from sibling tools suggests CRUD, but the description is insufficient.

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 no descriptions and 0% coverage. The description adds that the 'name' parameter corresponds to a list name, but only via an example ('Prueba'). It does not explain valid values or constraints, so it barely augments the schema.

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 indicates the tool retrieves a list by name, which is clear from the verb 'get' and the reference to 'list'. However, it erroneously specifies a concrete name 'Prueba', causing confusion about whether this is a fixed or parameterized operation. This reduces clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_list or update_list_name. There is no mention of prerequisites or context. The description lacks any usage direction.

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