collections_items_list_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List items with optional filtering and sorting' but omits crucial behavior such as pagination (limit/offset), the max limit of 100, default sort order, and the response structure. It does not contradict anything but adds minimal value beyond the verb.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy, making it highly concise. It could be more informative, but every word earns its place in stating the primary purpose.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination behavior, default limits, how filtering is actually performed, or what the response looks like. These are significant gaps for a read operation, leaving the agent to infer critical details from the schema alone.

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 100%, so every parameter (name, slug, limit, offset, sortBy, sortOrder, cmsLocaleId, collection_id) already has a description. The description's reference to 'filtering and sorting' loosely maps to sortBy/sortOrder but does not clarify how filtering works (since no filter parameter exists), and it adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the action ('List items') and the resource ('CMS collection'), which separates it from sibling create/update/delete/publish tools. However, it mentions 'optional filtering' but the schema only includes sorting parameters, not explicit filter fields, so the capability is slightly overstated.

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 states the core usage scenario (listing items in a collection) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Since there is no other list-items sibling, the context is implied, but the description does not proactively differentiate or set expectations.

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