list_items

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, so the description goes beyond them by adding non-obvious behavior: only titles are returned, never body or passwords, and pagination continues via next_offset. This materially changes how an agent invokes and interprets results.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded, followed by the critical content exclusion and pagination behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 six-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description communicates the essential semantics and pagination but omits parameter roles such as required share_id, type/state filtering, and limit usage. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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%, and the description compensates only for the query parameter (title search) and the offset/next_offset pagination concept. It does not explain share_id, type, state, limit, or how these filters interact, leaving most of the six parameters semantically opaque.

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 states a specific operation: searching/listing Proton Pass items by title, and explicitly notes it does not return body content or passwords. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_notes and read_field, so an agent can differentiate without opening the schema.

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 implies the intended use case: title-based searching/list retrieval while excluding sensitive content, which helps an agent decide against using body/password tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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