list_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the catalog is static ('baked') and includes entries that are queryable but not placeable, warning the agent about a downstream failure mode. It says nothing about result ordering, default result set size (limit defaults to 100), or whether the catalog is scoped to the browser session.

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 short sentences with the resource statement front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why parameter and usage details are missing rather than a sign of disciplined editing.

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?

Four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions mean the agent gets almost no information about what comes back or how to use the results. Critically, the description does not say whether returned items carry the identifiers needed by place_actor, which is the natural next step in this workflow.

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% across all four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never explains what 'query' matches against (name, tag, type), how 'limit'/'offset' interact, or why 'browser_session_id' is required for a read-only catalog lookup.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the editor's baked item catalog"), which is enough to distinguish it from the actor-oriented siblings (list_actors, place_actor). The verb "Search" versus the tool name "list_items" creates mild ambiguity about whether results are filtered or enumerated, but the resource is 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 clause "Some items are queryable but not placeable" implies a downstream constraint that matters when choosing between this tool and place_actor, but it never states when to call this instead of get_state or list_actors. There is no guidance on pagination strategy or the required browser_session_id.

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