my_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that non-public statuses are included, but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination behavior, ordering, or what the return shape looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical '(status flags)' is slightly cryptic, but overall the description is compact and readable.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers result scope but omits pagination behavior and authentication expectations. It is adequate at minimum but leaves important calling context unstated.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate for the page and per_page parameters. It mentions neither, leaving the agent with only the schema's types and defaults and no description-level guidance on pagination semantics.

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 identifies the resource as the caller's own listings and enumerates the statuses included (hidden, reserved, drafts, under review). The verb 'list' is only implicit, and no sibling tool is named, but the scope is specific enough to separate it from public search or get_item.

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 implied by 'your own listings' versus the sibling search/get_item tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent can infer the context but is given no routing rules.

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