fgui_get_list_items

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: read-only, version-gated (0.8.26+), order preserved, full array (not paged), plus the inherit-defaultItem semantics and the effectiveUrls resolution rule. The main undisclosed behavior is what happens when the target is not a List (error vs. empty) — that residual gap keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four terse sentences, front-loaded with the read-only purpose and scope before the caveats, with essentially no filler. Mild density cost from jargon like effectiveUrls and unsupportedItemData appearing without inline definition, but they tie directly to the output schema.

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 fields need not be explained, yet the description usefully annotates the two non-obvious ones. Against that, a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage leaves the targeting mechanism entirely undocumented, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call it successfully.

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 explain object_id, object_name and object_path — and it says nothing about them at all. It also does not clarify whether the three selectors are alternatives or cumulative, nor what 'current root component' means when a selector is supplied. Content is spent on return-value semantics instead of the inputs the agent actually has to choose.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('只读…List 条目') plus an explicit scope ('当前根组件下') and return shape ('按原顺序返回完整数组'). It also links forward to fgui_set_list_items, which helps disambiguate it from the sibling fgui_list_items, though the difference from that near-namesake is never stated outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: the note that items can be fed directly into set_list_items is a genuine round-trip workflow hint, and the unsupportedItemData warning tells the agent when a subsequent batch write will fail. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus fgui_list_items or fgui_get_tree, nor any prerequisite about the active document or root component being required.

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