dashy_list_items

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a read operation, and the description aligns with that without contradiction. It adds the behavioral detail that the section can be referenced by index or exact name, which helps the agent understand the accepted identifiers beyond the bare schema. This is useful context beyond the annotation.

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 a single sentence of about 13 words, front-loading the action and key resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 exists, so return structure is not required. However, the description lacks any explanation of the 'filename' parameter, which is likely the config file to operate on. This leaves a gap in the tool's usage context, even though the main purpose is clear.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains that 'sid' is a section index or exact name, but it does not mention 'filename', which is a significant omission. The description only partially covers the parameters, leaving the filename parameter undefined.

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 lists items (tiles) in a section, using a specific verb 'List' and resource 'items', and it specifies how the section is identified (by index or exact name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashy_get_section or dashy_get_item, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for enumerating items in a section but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when/when-not guidance. It gives some context on how the section is specified, but there is no exclusionary language or reference to other tools.

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