list_define

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Define" implies creation of a list definition, but the description does not say whether a document must be open, whether it mutates the document, how it interacts with existing lists, or what is returned.

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 efficient sentence with no waste and the core action front-loaded. It is terse rather than padded, though arguably too sparse to be genuinely well-structured.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% parameter coverage, the description leaves most of what an agent needs unanswered. It states the action but not the context, prerequisites, or consequences.

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 only 25%: only `document_id` is documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing about `name`, `type`, or `continueNumbering`, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. The only partial signal is that "numbered or bulleted" echoes the `type` enum.

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 ("Define") and resource ("list") and states the two variants (numbered/bulleted), matching the `type` enum. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_applyToParagraph or list_list, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The relationship to siblings such as list_applyToParagraph, list_restartNumbering, and list_list (i.e., define first, then apply) is left entirely to inference.

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