list_project_items

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It clearly implies a read-only enumeration scoped to the current project. However, it does not disclose details like whether the result includes nested bins, performance implications for large projects, or whether it returns offline media, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Two sentences, 22 words, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a purpose statement. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional boolean parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context. The schema covers parameters, and the description adds the 'discover available media' workflow context. Could mention hierarchy or exclusion behavior, but this is sufficient.

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%, with both `includeBins` and `includeMetadata` already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope ('Lists all media items, bins, and assets in the current Premiere Pro project'), which distinguishes it from sequence- or track-specific list tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_sequences or get_bin_contents, preventing a 5. The usage hint adds value.

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?

Explicit when to use: 'Use this to discover available media before performing operations.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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