list_items

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does establish that this is a read-only listing and discloses the default status of 'open'. It is silent on ordering, result size, pagination, or whether any auth is needed, though the presence of an output schema removes the obligation to describe return shapes.

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 tight sentences with the enumeration front-loaded and the use case trailing. Slightly awkward line-wrapping and quotation style, but every clause conveys information.

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?

A single optional filter parameter on a read tool with an output schema is a simple surface, and the description covers the value set and typical use. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering of results or whether the list is scoped to the current run.

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 coverage is 0% — the parameter is declared only as a bare string with default 'open' and no enum. The description compensates well by spelling out the three accepted values ('open', 'bought', 'all') and the default, but since the schema itself carries no meaning and the description does not mark these as the only valid literal values, it stops short of fully documenting the parameter contract.

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 logged items') and immediately qualifies scope via the three status modes, so an agent knows it returns a filtered view of the item log. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like mark_bought or tally, but the read-and-filter framing is clear on its own.

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?

Offers implied usage ('Handy for double-checking the log before planning or closing a run'), which gives a plausible context but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative. The agent must infer that mutating siblings (log_item, mark_bought) are the correct choice for anything other than reading.

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