list_items

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose pagination semantics (cursor-paginated, ``fetch_all`` walks all pages) and that results are returned in a trimmed shape rather than full item objects. It does not state read-only-ness explicitly, nor permission requirements, rate limits, or what ``fetch_all`` does to ``limit``.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and result shape, then parameter behaviors in a tight sequence; every sentence carries information. The parenthetical field list is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it usefully signals the results are compact rather than full objects.

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 six-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious filters, pagination model, and result compactness. Remaining gaps (limit behavior, sort order, permissions) are modest given the output schema handles return-value documentation.

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 must compensate, and it does for most parameters: ``type`` is enumerated with ten concrete values that the schema itself lacks (schema declares only plain string), and ``parent_item_id``, ``cursor``, and ``fetch_all`` each get functional meaning. It omits ``limit`` semantics and how it interacts with ``fetch_all``.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List items on a board") and even names the projected return shape, so the scope is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like search_items, get_items_by_tag, or get_group_items, so an agent must infer that this is the board-scoped, unfiltered-by-query enumeration.

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?

Usage is implied through parameter guidance: use ``type`` to narrow to one item type and ``parent_item_id`` to list frame children. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus search_items or the tag/group listing siblings, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here.

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