get_items

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

Without annotations, description carries full burden. It reveals pagination behavior (max 50 items per call, iterative for full list). Missing other traits like ordering, read-only nature, or error handling.

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?

Single sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by key constraint. No extraneous words.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return value. It doesn't describe the shape of the item list or any fields. Lacks read-only indication (not in annotations) and error conditions. Incomplete for a simple list tool.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description only hints at start_at usage for pagination but doesn't explain its type or role clearly. Project_id is not described at all. Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (get), resource (project items), and scope (list with max 50). Distinguishes from get_item (single) and search_items (search vs list). Is slightly lacking in explicit differentiation from siblings.

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?

Provides pagination guidance (max 50, repeat with start_at) but no advice on when to use vs search_items or get_item, no prerequisites or context about required project_id.

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