alexa_get_list_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the default omission of completed items and a prompt-injection warning that returned text is third-party and untrusted. It does not disclose return structure or whether results are paginated.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: what it reads, the default filtering rule, and the untrusted-content warning. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally sketch what comes back; it hints at third-party text but does not mention item ids or completion status that the update/remove siblings would need. Given the annotations cover the safety profile and the injection warning covers the riskiest aspect, this is close to complete but leaves a modest return-shape gap.

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 both the 'list' selector and includeCompleted are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the includeCompleted default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra semantics such as accepted list-name formats.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Read the items on an Alexa shopping or to-do list') that cleanly contrasts with the write siblings alexa_add_list_item, alexa_update_list_item, and alexa_remove_list_item. The scope (shopping or to-do list) and the default filtering behavior are stated up front, so an agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the description notes completed items are omitted unless includeCompleted is set, which tells the agent how to widen the result set, and the schema points to alexa_list_lists for list names/ids. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when a sibling (e.g. alexa_add_list_item) would be the right call instead.

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