List planning items

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds the context of 'existing unified planning view,' which is a minor behavioral detail, but it does not mention pagination, sorting, or what happens if the view is empty or invalid.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and contains no filler words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is too sparse for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. It does not clarify what 'mixed items' means, what the return structure looks like, or how the search parameter works. Given the existence of sibling tools like list_planning_tasks, the ambiguity could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It indirectly references the 'view' parameter through 'planning view,' but completely ignores the 'search' parameter and its behavior. The schema enums are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond 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 lists items ('List mixed items') for a planning view, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools via the word 'mixed' (implying multiple item types) versus list_planning_tasks, but could be more explicit about what item types are included.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like personal_os_list_planning_tasks or personal_os_list_inbox_items. The description lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternative references, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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