item_request_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool returns provenance and fill status and does not return credential values. The read-only nature is implied by 'review' and 'list' but not explicitly stated, and no side effects are mentioned. Still, it provides good insight into the tool's behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key details. Every part is informative and there is no extraneous text.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (provenance and fill status) and its filtering (tag-based), but it does not cover pagination, ordering, or default behavior for the limit parameter. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail about the return structure would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already described in the schema. The tool-level description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 reviews placeholder items created by item_request_create with a specific tag 'mcp-managed'. It distinguishes itself by specifying what it returns (provenance and fill status) and explicitly what it does not return (credential values), making its purpose unique among sibling tools.

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 explains that the tool is for reviewing items created by item_request_create and tagged 'mcp-managed', providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of the tool's purpose and the mention of credential exclusion guide appropriate usage.

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