things_find_items

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: trash is excluded unless its list is explicitly requested, notes are omitted unless requested, results are bounded and not a snapshot, and a fresh fetch is needed before editing. This is strong 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?

The description is four tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, useful caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations already establish the safety profile, the description supplies the critical behavioral caveats an agent needs: filterable dimensions, trash/note handling, bounded results, and the pre-edit fetch requirement. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It effectively maps to parameters: 'type' maps to kind, 'title or notes' to text, 'status' to status, 'built-in list' to list, and 'project/area parent' to parent. It even implies includeNotes. However, it leaves limit, offset, and enum nuances partially implicit, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('items'), and enumerates the main search dimensions: type, text, status, list, and parent. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like things_get_item, things_create_item, and things_update_item, which perform different operations.

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 makes the search/filter use case obvious and adds workflow guidance with 'Fetch an item before editing,' implying this tool is for discovery rather than mutation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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