list-get

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 states 'Gets information', suggesting a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned (e.g., metadata, content). For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., by hinting at sibling tools). There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise for a basic tool.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information' is retrieved, how to interpret parameters like 'withPermissions', or any behavioral traits. For a read operation with multiple inputs and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the three parameters (title, webUrl, withPermissions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool 'Gets information about the specific list', which clearly indicates a read operation on a list resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-list' (likely for listing multiple lists) or 'list-add'/'list-remove' (for modifications), leaving the specific scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving details of a specific list, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing the list's title and webUrl), contrast with 'list-list' for broader queries, or mention any constraints. Usage is implied from the purpose but without actionable advice.

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