get_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this is a read operation ('取得します') and specifies the scope, but does not mention permissions, pagination, ordering, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple list retrieval but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence in Japanese that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

The tool has low complexity: one parameter, no output schema, and a clear scope. The description covers the essential purpose and differentiates from siblings. However, it might be slightly improved by mentioning the return format (e.g., an array of list objects), but this is not critical given the simplicity.

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 fully documents the single 'space_id' parameter with a clear description ('スペースID'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('取得します' = retrieves) and a specific resource ('リスト一覧' = list of lists), with a clear scope: lists that do not belong to any folder in the space. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_folder_lists, which presumably retrieves lists within a folder.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need lists not attached to a folder) and contrasts with folder-based lists. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of explicit guidance.

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