list_saved_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuine behavioral facts the annotations do not: the result ordering ("Oculus order") and that live forge data is not fetched, so results may be stale/metadata-only. It does not cover pagination behavior or result volume.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope negation is appended efficiently. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, pagination semantics are absent from both schema and description, and the undefined jargon (Oculus order, forge data) leaves an agent without a clear mental model of the result set.

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 both limit and offset are undocumented in the schema, and the description never mentions pagination, defaults of 20/0, or the maximum of 50. For a two-parameter list tool the description is the only place this could be explained, and it isn't.

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 verb+resource is identifiable ("Read saved activity metadata"), but "saved activity" and "Oculus order" are unexplained domain jargon, and the description does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like list_tracked_projects or list_inspections. The negation ("does not fetch live forge data") narrows scope somewhat but doesn't clarify what is returned.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. The only hint is the negative constraint about live forge data, which an agent could infer as an exclusion but is never framed as such.

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