add_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It covers glyph rendering, numbering.xml infrastructure, numbering restart per call, nesting behavior, backup rotation, atomic validated saves, and refusal to operate on Word-locked documents. This is unusually thorough.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, item format, key behavior, backup semantics, and a critical safety refusal. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids filler or repetition.

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?

The description is strong on side effects, failure conditions, and list behavior, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, the relationships and defaults among placement parameters (at_end, after_index, after_anchor) are not clarified, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with seven parameters and no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain items as strings or {text, level} dicts, kind values, and backup behavior, but it leaves placement parameters at_end, after_index, and after_anchor largely undocumented. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 opening clause states a specific action ('Insert a bulleted or numbered list') and specifies the distinctive implementation detail of real bullet/number glyphs. This clearly separates add_list from read-only siblings like get_lists and from other insertion tools such as insert_paragraphs or add_heading.

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 makes the intended use clear: this is the tool for inserting bulleted/numbered lists with nested levels and independent numbering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is obvious enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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