list_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the default compact projection, the rejection of unfilterable fields with a 400 error, the limit cap behavior (backend rejects >500), and the automatic injection of fields like ref, org_slug, type, and sequence. It also clarifies the effect of the 'full' and 'window' parameters. This level of detail is exemplary.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence and bullet points for filters. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but the organization compensates.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no param descriptions in schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: projection details, filter syntax, limit behavior, and error handling. The existence of an output schema (not shown) means return values need not be explained, and the description still mentions the compact vs full rows. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: kind (listing possible values), status, from_date/to_date (format and behavior), limit (maps to $top and cap), full (boolean to drop projection), and window (opt-out default). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it lists items of various kinds (Task/Habit/Chore/Event) with windowing, calling itself the 'canonical, bounded list view'. It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'items', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_items or get_items_calendar, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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 context such as the default projection and mentions when to use window='all' for full history. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_items or other listing tools, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions for not using it. Usage guidelines are implied but not explicit.

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