get_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and adds useful behavioral detail about grouping, 0-based nesting, and numbering styles. It does not cover error behavior or ordering, but the output schema mitigates that.

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 compact and front-loaded with the return shape, followed by the intended use case and a read-only safety note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one self-evident parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it states exactly what is returned, how list paragraphs are grouped, what nesting/style details are included, and the typical verification use case. Nothing critical is missing.

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 only parameter, file_path, is not explained in the description, and the schema provides no description either (0% coverage). The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond 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 clearly identifies the resource—numbered and bulleted list paragraphs—and specifies the output details: grouping by numbering instance, nesting level, numbering style, and text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_outline and get_text by focusing specifically on list structure.

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 gives an explicit use case: verifying list restarts and nesting after insert_document or add_list. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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