list_task_lists

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

Beyond the annotations that already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned URI is stable, while display names change on rename and are not unique. This identity semantics is important for correct downstream use and is not expressed in the annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence delivers a crucial caveat about URI stability and display names. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns (task lists), the scope (this account), and the key identity caveat (URI stable, display name not unique). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and use it correctly.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the parameter documentation burden is minimal. The description does not need to explain any inputs, and it even adds value by explaining what the returned URI represents, which supports later parameter usage in other tools.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List the task lists in this account." It clearly identifies what is being listed and scopes it to the account, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks and list_tags without needing to open the schema.

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 provides clear context for how the tool's output should be used: "Use the returned 'uri' wherever a tool takes a list." It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance about stable URIs versus non-unique display names gives the agent actionable selection and follow-up information.

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