Get Task List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the operation type; it does not mention return format, error cases, or required scopes. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 the low complexity (2 required params, no nesting), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the action and target, while the schema and annotations cover the remaining details. Slight deduction for not mentioning relationship to sibling list tools, but this is minor.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters (user_google_email and task_list_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline of 3 is warranted because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'get' with the resource 'task list', clearly indicating a read operation for a single list. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_task_lists' (which lists all) and 'get_task' (which retrieves a task within a list), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_task_lists' or 'get_task'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without sufficient decision support.

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