basecamp_list_todolists

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 only states the core action ('List all to-do lists') and does not mention the status filter, pagination, ordering, or the requirement to specify a todoset. No extra behavioral context is added.

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 8-word sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. It contains no wasted words, but the brevity sacrifices necessary context, such as the todoset required parameter. It is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the resource and action, but does not explain the nesting of to-do lists within a to-do set or mention the available status filter. The schema covers parameters, but the description leaves the operational context incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by implying project_id ('in a project') but does not clarify todoset_id or status semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema is thorough, this is adequate.

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 clearly states 'List all to-do lists in a project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_todolist (single to-do list) and list_todos (todos within a list). The scope is clear despite the slight imprecision of 'in a project' versus within a specific todoset.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a todoset ID), exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. Sibling differentiation is absent.

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