list_items

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses sort order ('most recently modified first'), default scope ('every library ... personal plus all group/shared libraries'), exclusions ('not notes/attachments'), and the exact return fields. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives an agent an accurate behavioral model.

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 dense but every sentence adds necessary information: behavior, ordering, filters, paging, scope, and output shape. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context for correct invocation: it defines the item universe, filter semantics, pagination strategy, library scoping behavior, and return fields. An agent can select and call this tool without needing to inspect sibling tools or make risky assumptions.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter: tag, limit, offset, item_type, library_id, and collection_key all receive semantic meaning. It also provides concrete examples like 'journalArticle' and tells the agent where to get valid collection_key and library_id values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List items ... in the library', and immediately clarifies scope by excluding notes/attachments and defining item categories. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_item and search_metadata by describing the list behavior and return fields.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use filters, how to page with limit/offset, and how to scope to a specific library via library_id. It also references sibling tools list_collections and list_libraries as sources for parameter values, giving clear routing guidance.

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