ilias_list_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: recursion is triggered by depth > 0, recursion is capped, and files expose an 'already_read' flag. However, '(max 3)' is ambiguous (max depth vs. max child items), which blunts the value of the added context.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the returned object shape and followed by the depth and read-state caveats. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical '(max 3)' could have been made precise at no extra length cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so spending most of the description on returned fields (type, title, ref_id, version/date/size) partly duplicates structured data while the required 'target' argument is left undefined. For a 2-parameter listing tool with a read-only profile the definition is serviceable, but not complete enough to guarantee a correct first call.

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 bears the full burden. It partially explains 'depth' (values above 0 trigger recursion with a cap), but never clarifies the accepted format or scope of 'target' (ref_id? path? course id?), which is the required parameter. Half the parameter surface remains undefined.

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 makes clear it returns the objects contained in a course/folder/group/session and enumerates the key fields (type, title, ref_id, version/date/size), so an agent can tell this is a container-listing tool. It lacks an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from siblings such as ilias_list_courses or ilias_list_assignments, which overlap in surface area.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the other list_* siblings, nor any statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-like hint is the parenthetical about depth > 0, which describes behavior rather than when to use the tool.

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