get_user_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., list objects with metadata), or any rate limits. The description lacks details on pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' parameter) or default limits (implied by 'count' default), leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get lists owned by a user'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too minimal for a tool with 3 parameters. It adequately states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 0%, meaning none of the parameters (user_id, count, cursor) are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'a user', which loosely relates to 'user_id', but adds no meaning for 'count' (number of lists to retrieve) or 'cursor' (pagination token). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving key parameters unexplained.

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 'Get lists owned by a user' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('lists owned by a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from other list-related tools like 'get_list' (which retrieves a specific list) or 'get_list_members' (which retrieves members of a list). However, it doesn't specify whether this returns all lists or paginated results, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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. For example, it doesn't mention how this differs from 'get_list' (which requires a list_id) or 'get_user_following' (which retrieves users, not lists). There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the user_id of the target user, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter schema alone.

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