create_list_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns: Created container information with storage settings' which helps, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Creates'), what permissions are needed, whether containers are permanent or deletable, error conditions, or rate limits. The storage permissions configuration is mentioned but not explained behaviorally.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, storage, hierarchy, returns). Each sentence adds value, though the 'Usage:' line could be more integrated. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations. Minor room for improvement in flow, but generally efficient.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and some parameter context, but lacks behavioral transparency details (permissions, mutability, errors) and doesn't fully explain all parameters. The output schema reduces need to describe returns, but other gaps remain for a creation tool.

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 mentions 'Storage permissions: Configure what types of items can be stored' (mapping to can_store_containers/can_store_samples) and 'Hierarchy: Optionally nest within another container' (mapping to parent_container_id). However, it doesn't explain the name, description, or tags parameters at all. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage across all 6 parameters.

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 tool creates a 'list-based container for organizing inventory' with specific examples (folders, boxes). It distinguishes from sibling 'create_grid_container' by specifying 'list-based' vs 'grid' containers. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other container-related tools like 'move_items_to_list_container' or 'get_container'.

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 provides implied usage context with 'Usage: Create folders, boxes, or other containers without specific positioning' and mentions 'Hierarchy: Optionally nest within another container.' It suggests when to use this vs 'create_grid_container' (list vs grid), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'create_grid_container' by name. No prerequisites or permissions guidance beyond storage configuration.

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