things_find_items

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses that sorting changes only result order, that pagination beyond 5000 objects requires following nextScanOffset with zero offset, and that results are not a snapshot. The 'Fetch before editing' warning further clarifies result staleness.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, sorting semantics, pagination rule, and staleness warning. It is front-loaded with the resource and filters, and contains no filler or repetition.

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 17-parameter query with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, sorting, pagination, and snapshot behavior. It is missing explicit guidance on count vs. list alternatives and the meaning of includeNotes, but these are minor given the output schema and self-explanatory parameter names.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It maps the main filter parameters (kind, text, status, tagId, date ranges, selected, list, parent) and explains the semantics of sortBy/sortOrder and scanOffset/offset. It doesn't mention limit or includeNotes explicitly, but the schema names and defaults make those mostly self-evident.

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 first sentence names a concrete verb ('Find'), a resource ('items'), and the major filter dimensions (type, text, status, tag ID, date range, selected, list, parent). This distinguishes it from sibling get_item (single item), count_items (counts), and exists (boolean check), so an agent can select it as the list/query tool.

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 gives practical when-to-use context: it is a read-only find operation and the line 'Fetch before editing' positions it as a precursor to mutation tools. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as things_count_items for counts, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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