list_matter_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. The description says 'list all items' but omits details like pagination, filtering, sorting, or whether it is a read-only operation. This lack of transparency limits the agent's understanding.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loaded with key information. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists (not shown), so return values are covered. However, the tool lacks annotations, and the description does not address behavioral aspects like idempotency or rate limits. Given the simplicity and existence of output schema, it is marginally 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the matter_id is the matter on which to list items, but does not elaborate on format or constraints beyond the schema's 'string' type. The context from the tool name and single parameter makes it minimally adequate.

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 'List all items (checklist items, workflow steps) on a matter,' specifying the verb and resource. It provides examples that help distinguish from siblings like 'get_matter_item' (singular) and 'list_tasks' (task-specific). However, it could be more precise about the scope of 'items'.

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 alternatives such as 'list_tasks' or 'list_files_on_matter.' The description implies it is for checklist items and workflow steps, but does not explicitly state usage context or exclusions.

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