list-project-items

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

The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. Given the absence of annotations, it carries the burden well by describing the returned data and the intended use, which are sufficient for typical listing behavior.

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 concise, two sentences, and well-structured. It packs purpose, differentiation, and usage examples without redundancy, 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?

The description provides sufficient context: what the tool returns (including source paths, missing status, and IDs), and typical use cases. While there is no output schema, the description hints at key fields, making it fairly complete for a list operation.

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?

The input schema descriptions already cover each parameter effectively (type, limit, missingOnly). The tool description adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: listing items in the project panel with detailed attributes. It explicitly differentiates from getProjectInfo by highlighting the full, filterable nature and the ability to find broken links and relink footage.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: finding broken links before render and looking up footage IDs for relink-footage. It also contrasts with getProjectInfo, indicating when not to use this tool (when summary-only is sufficient).

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