saved_items_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering, authenticated ownership, item contents (durable file_path vs temporary signed URL), and pagination behavior. It is clearly read-only, though it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or mention rate limits.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds meaningful detail (item contents, filtering, pagination).

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 output schema covers return values, and the description covers auth, ordering, item contents, filtering, and pagination. With zero required parameters and no annotations, this is complete for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents type, limit, and cursor thoroughly. The description adds no new parameter semantics; the cursor explanation duplicates the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Returns active saved items owned by the authenticated account, newest first,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and ordering. It also lists the item types (characters, references, voices, moodboards, brand kits), and no sibling tool covers listing saved assets, so it is easily distinguished.

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 provides clear context: filtering by type, pagination via cursor, and that items are for reuse in generation APIs. There are no similar list tools among siblings, so explicit when-not-to-use guidance is unnecessary, but it could have been slightly more explicit about when to choose this over other retrieval tools.

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