aps_list_submittal_items

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'compact summary' with specific fields, and mentions filtering. However, it does not explain pagination behavior (limit/offset) or note that this is a read-only operation. The disclosure is good but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states the action and result, second lists key features. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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 tool has 6 parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output, and filtering options adequately. It lacks explanation of pagination behavior, which is a minor gap for a list tool. Overall sufficient.

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%; all 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond summarizing output fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 it lists submittal items in an ACC project, specifying the exact resource ('submittal items') and action ('list'). It also names the fields returned, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like 'aps_get_submittal_item' which retrieves a single item.

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 lists filtering options (status, package, spec section, review response) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aps_get_submittal_item' or other list tools. The context is implied but not clarified, so usage guidelines are only adequate.

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