list_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that campaignId is required, how the page parameter behaves, whether the operation is read-only, or what counts as an 'item' in this domain.

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 short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise; it is essentially a tautology that saves words at the expense of all useful information. A meaningful description could still be brief while conveying scope and requirements.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a 0% parameter coverage, the description needed to carry the full context but provides none. An agent cannot know that campaignId is required, how paging works, or what resource is being listed, making correct invocation impossible from the description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it adds nothing. It does not clarify that campaignId is required or that page likely controls pagination, leaving the schema's raw field names as the only guidance.

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 'List items' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name, providing no additional specificity about what 'items' refers to or the scope of listing. It does include a verb and resource, but it fails to distinguish this tool from the many sibling list_* tools (list_characters, list_quests, etc.).

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?

There is no guidance about when to use list_items versus get_item for retrieving a single item, or versus other list_* tools for different resource types. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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