getItemsByType

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering and browsing, which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The description is too brief to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly address purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns filtered cosmetic items. It doesn't explain what 'cosmetics' are in this context, what fields are returned, or how results are structured. For a filtering tool with zero structured metadata, more context is needed.

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%, with the parameter 'type' fully documented in the schema (including enum values). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'category' and listing the same enum values, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Filter cosmetics by category' with specific categories listed (NAMEPLATE/MVP/EMOTE/SPRAY). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'listItems' by specifying filtering rather than listing all items, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential alternatives like 'getHeroSkins' which might also involve cosmetics.

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 usage context ('Perfect for browsing specific customization options') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listItems' or 'getHeroSkins'. It provides general guidance but lacks specific comparisons or exclusions.

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