List checklists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the safety and behavior disclosure. It discloses the row cap ('at most 500 rows'), ordering ('newest change first'), and implies a read-only listing. It could mention pagination or auth, but for a simple list tool the key behaviors are covered.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core output and then add filtering, a row cap, and sort order. No filler or repetition of the title. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 output schema, the description still communicates the returned fields, optional filters, row limit, and ordering. For a low-complexity list tool with two optional parameters, nothing essential is missing. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description with matching semantics. The description's 'filter by category or by a word in the name' paraphrases the schema without adding new constraints. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the work.

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 names a specific action and resource: listing every checklist, and enumerates the fields returned (category, version, step count, run count). The title reinforces the verb, and the resource clearly distinguishes it from the run_* siblings. It could name checklist_show explicitly, but the list-versus-detail distinction is clear.

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 makes the use case clear: retrieve checklists with optional filtering by category or name substring. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives such as checklist_show for a single checklist's details, so it stops short of full routing guidance. Still, the context is self-evident for a list operation.

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