create_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose several real traits: uniqueness constraint on names, the returned id/title, and the fact that color/icon are not configurable yet. It omits error behavior on duplicate names and any auth/permission notes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the uniqueness constraint, then return-value handling and the color/icon caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise lack; nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it makes, the uniqueness rule, what it returns, and how the return value feeds other tools. Only duplicate-name failure behavior is left unstated.

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 0% and there is a single required `name` parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaningful 'Names must be unique' constraint, but gives no format, length, or validation guidance beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Reminders list'), and the parenthetical clarifies the in-app location. The resource ('Reminders list') is clearly distinct from sibling creators like create_calendar, create_event, create_note, and create_reminder, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

It explains downstream usage ('use either as the `list` argument of the other tools'), which is helpful workflow context, but never states when to prefer create_list over alternatives or any precondition/exclusion. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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