list_agent_bus_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a listing operation, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or whether the caller needs any particular auth or channel membership.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional filter trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials but omits return-shape hints, ordering/pagination behavior, and differentiation from the near-identical repo sibling. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not more.

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 has to compensate. It does clarify that 'channel' selects the bus channel and that 'status' is an optional filter, which is more than the bare schema types convey, but it gives no accepted status values or channel format.

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 clear verb plus resource ('List items in a bus channel'), so the agent knows what it does. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling list_repo_bus_items or explain the agent-vs-repo scope split, so the agent must open the schema to disambiguate.

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 notes an optional status filter but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer this over list_repo_bus_items or query_wiki. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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