get_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation without side effects, the description does not explicitly confirm idempotency, error behavior (e.g., missing list), or any rate limits. The statement is minimally acceptable but lacks depth expected for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to clarity, and the structure is optimal for a tool with a simple interface.

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 straightforward purpose. The description covers the basic function but is vague about what 'details and stats' specifically include—no return structure or field details are hinted. Given the lack of an output schema, the description could be more complete by enumerating typical fields returned. However, for a simple retrieval tool, it is passable.

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% (one parameter, list_id, with description 'The list ID'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it simply restates that the tool operates on a specific list. Per the rubric, this baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles the parameter explanation.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('details and stats for a specific punch list'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_my_lists (which presumably lists all lists) and list_items (which deals with items), making the tool's singular focus unambiguous.

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 such as list_my_lists for enumerating lists or get_activity for historical data. No exclusions or context about prerequisites (e.g., 'list must exist') are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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