get_list_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by stating the return shape ("items organized by section with their completion status"), which annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded in one sentence and the return-shape note is a single line. The three example questions are somewhat redundant with the purpose sentence but do earn their place as retrieval/routing cues.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool returns (sections plus completion status) and when to reach for it. It omits any mention of result size or pagination behavior, a minor gap for a list-contents read.

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% and each parameter (listName, listType, includeCompleted) is documented in the schema, including the default-grocery-list behavior and the listName/listType alternative. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get items from a specific Skylight list") and clarifies the scope is items within a list rather than lists themselves, which separates it from get_lists. The example questions reinforce that it is the read path for list contents.

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 three quoted example questions give concrete, recognizable triggers for when to call it (grocery list contents, to-do list contents). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as get_lists (for enumerating lists) or create_list_item/update_list_item, so routing to siblings is left implicit.

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