list_project_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 clearly states that the tool lists bins and media and includes node IDs, which is important expected behavior. However, it does not mention edge cases like whether a project must be open or if the list is paginated, leaving some gaps. The basic read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical use case. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides key details: what is listed (bins and media) and what is returned (node IDs). It also gives a use-case context. However, it omits the 'limit' parameter semantics and return format details, so it is not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the 'limit' parameter. It does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning from the default and maximum values in the schema. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 the tool's function: 'List the project panel contents: bins and media, with the node ID of each.' This identifies a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('project panel contents'), and the key output ('node ID'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_clip (which targets a single clip) and create_bin (which creates a bin).

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to find footage before adding it to a timeline.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and implies its role in a workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, falling short of a perfect 5.

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