list-items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists items but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds usage context without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a list operation with one parameter (page) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on pagination behavior, return format, error handling, or prerequisites, which are essential for effective tool use. The usage hint helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 the undocumented parameter 'page'. However, the description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't mention pagination, explain what 'page' means, or provide any semantic context. This fails to address the coverage gap, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('all items in Xero'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on items rather than other resources like contacts or invoices, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar list tools like list-accounts or list-contacts.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'to get the item codes and descriptions to be used when creating invoices in Xero.' This gives practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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