npm_list_access_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only enumeration but says nothing about result size, pagination, whether the list is tenant-scoped, or what fields each entry contains. For a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. It is on the terse side and does not use the remaining space to say anything an agent would want, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can identify and invoke it. However, it omits return-shape expectations and any hint about the volume or default ordering of results, which leaves the definition thin even for a simple endpoint.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'query' and 'expand' are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about what keyword filtering means or which related objects can be expanded, so the baseline 3 applies — no value added, but none required.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('access lists') and clarifies scope with parenthetical examples ('basic auth, IP restrictions'). That said, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling npm_get_access_list, which retrieves a single list, so an agent must infer the collection-vs-single distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as npm_get_access_list or npm_list_settings. No prerequisites or context for the listing operation are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling naming conventions.

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