list_task_lists

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

The verb 'List' signals a read-only operation, and the Returns clause describes the output shape. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose prerequisites such as OAuth/start_google_auth, pagination behavior, or the effect of the 1000-item cap beyond the parameter default.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place with no redundancy or verbosity.

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 simple list operation, the description covers all parameters and the basic return format, and an output schema exists for additional detail. It is complete enough for direct invocation, though it lacks usage routing guidance relative to sibling task-list tools.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description documents all three parameters with types, requiredness, defaults, and the max cap for max_results. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though page_token could be more specific about where the token originates.

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 opening line 'List all task lists for the user' names a specific verb, resource, and scope, making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings such as get_task_list and list_tasks by name and wording, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task_list, list_tasks, or manage_task_list. It states what the tool does but leaves the agent to infer selection criteria.

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