todo_list_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are scoped to the signed-in user; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, though the output schema covers the return shape.

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 redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 input parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is close to complete. A minor gap is the absence of any note on ordering or result limits, which an agent may care about when listing.

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 tool has zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly refrains from inventing any.

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 and resource ('List all Microsoft To Do task lists (projects)') and scopes it to the signed-in user, which distinguishes it from the Planner listing siblings. It does not explicitly name the nearby sibling todo_list_tasks, so differentiation relies on the agent noticing the resource noun.

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 phrase 'for the signed-in user' implies usage context, and the tool takes no parameters so there is little to misconfigure. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this versus planner_list_plans or todo_list_tasks, leaving the choice to be inferred from names.

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