list_items_with_next_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the technical behavior of handling large nextTokens via request body, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a pagination tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two clear sentences that efficiently explain the tool's unique value proposition. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the technical advantage. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'items' means in this API.

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. It explains the technical mechanism for large tokens but doesn't cover what the tool returns, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a pagination tool in a media API context, users need to know what kind of items are returned and the response structure.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'any type of nextToken' but doesn't clarify what that means beyond the schema's explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'list items with any type of `nextToken`' and explains the technical mechanism for handling long tokens. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pagination with large tokens, unlike other list/search tools that may use different pagination methods. However, it doesn't specify what 'items' refers to in this API context.

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: when you need to handle pagination with nextTokens longer than 4KB. It mentions this bypasses URL/header size limits, suggesting when to use this vs standard pagination. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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