list_data_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about scope (entire program vs. current function), ordering, or pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters. It adds little beyond restating the return fields, which the output schema already covers.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a paginated tool with no annotations, but there is no wasted text.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so those need not be explained. However, for a paginated listing tool with no annotations and zero parameter coverage, the description omits scope, ordering, and pagination behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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% and the description never mentions the limit or offset parameters. Since the tool is paginated, the description should explain pagination semantics but instead leaves both parameters entirely undocumented.

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 ('List defined data') and enumerates the returned fields (address, label, type, value), which helps distinguish it from siblings like list_strings or list_imports. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings or clarifies what 'defined data' means in this program-analysis context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list_* tools, and no preconditions or exclusions stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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