get_public_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not state visibility rules, authentication needs, error behavior, or what qualifies as public; the output schema covers return shape but not these behaviors.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, and lookup key are all present. The length is appropriate for a one-parameter read operation.

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?

With no annotations and a closely named sibling get_list, the definition lacks enough behavioral and selection context for reliable invocation. The output schema covers return values, but missing visibility/auth details and alternative guidance leave a meaningful gap.

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 schema has only one parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description's 'by slug' is the only clue that slug is the resource identifier rather than some unrelated filter. This adds essential meaning, though it does not define slug format or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public list') with the lookup key ('by slug'), so the core action is clear. The word 'public' partially differentiates it from the sibling get_list, but it never explicitly names or explains the relationship, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus get_list, get_public_profile, or other siblings. The phrase 'public list' implies a use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues, leaving the agent to infer selection logic.

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