roiq_list_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation (listing), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or what the response structure looks like. The behavior is safe but could be more explicit.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, and no unnecessary information is present.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 simple parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool lists and how to filter, which is sufficient for effective usage.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'space' can be an ID or name and that filters can be combined ('y/o'). This additional context improves understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 lists items (pages, boards, tables, whiteboards, links) from the workspace, with filtering by space and type. The verb 'lista' (list) and the resource 'items' are specific, and the scope (workspace) is defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list specific item types like cards or spaces.

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 filtering options (by space ID/name and/or type), guiding when to use these filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like roiq_list_cards or roiq_list_spaces, though the broader scope is implied.

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