Copy a packing list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical non-obvious trait that the copy references the same item rows as the original (shared items), which is essential for understanding side effects. It also points to fork_item for detaching, adding useful context. It could go further by mentioning other side effects like whether the original is modified or what happens to the new list's name, but it covers the most important behavior.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does, the second details the shared-item behavior and suggests a related tool. No wasted words.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (shared items) and gives a path to detach items. However, it is incomplete in explaining parameter usage (especially newName) and could benefit from mentioning what happens to the new list's name or whether the original is affected. The core functionality is understandable, but the parameter gap prevents a higher score.

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 the description does not compensate. Neither listId nor newName is explained; newName is never mentioned. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify that newName is optional or what it controls, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the full parameter semantics.

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 states the action ('Duplicates a list and its categories') using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like fork_item by highlighting that it duplicates the entire list structure while sharing item rows. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to duplicate a list and its categories. It also names fork_item as a follow-up alternative for detaching specific items, providing guidance on a related operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with creating a new list from scratch, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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