get_users_by_id_lists_collaborations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and the semantic that it returns collaboration lists, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, permissions, or what 'extended' affects beyond a generic response detail.

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 no filler. The one-line purpose, endpoint path, and short Args list are all directly useful and easy to scan.

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 list endpoint with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the two parameters and the resource. It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives and response filtering, but the output schema and annotations compensate for most missing operational context.

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 id meaningfully as 'the slug that identifies the user, or "me" for the authenticated user,' and extended as 'Extended information to include in the response.' The id explanation is strong, though extended remains vague.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all lists a user can collaborate on.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_users_by_id_lists by narrowing the resource to collaboration lists, not just all user lists.

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 implies usage by defining what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No sibling differentiation is provided, so an agent must infer context from the tool name and the generic phrase.

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