get_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it explicitly states the return shape ('list names, types (shopping/to_do), and item counts'), which compensates for the absence of annotations. It could be slightly more explicit about it being a non-mutating read, though this is heavily implied by 'Get' and the return-value emphasis.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct weight: purpose+examples, when to use, and return shape. Zero filler words, perfectly front-loaded with the verb+subject.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient: it explains what it does, when to use it, and what data comes back. Nothing more is needed given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Zero parameters means the schema needs no elaboration, so the baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses this — no parameter documentation is needed.

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?

Clear verb+resource construction ('Get all lists from Skylight') with concrete examples ('grocery lists, to-do lists') that delimit scope. The examples naturally differentiate it from sibling get_list_items by focusing on the list-level granularity.

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?

'Use this to see what lists are available before adding items' provides explicit workflow context and implies when not to use it (when you already have the list ID). The only shortfall is not naming get_list_items directly as an alternative for item-level operations.

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