Get items in a 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 the default filtering behavior (excludes completed) and the return shape, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't mention read-only safety, pagination, ordering, or permissions—significant omissions for a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short, front-loaded clauses: scope, default behavior, return shape. No wasted words, and the most decision-relevant fact (default exclusion) is prominent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the inline return shape is a plus. But for a 2-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: list_id semantics, pagination, error cases, and read-only nature are unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 compensate. It clarifies that include_completed controls the completed-item filter, which gives meaning to one parameter. But list_id is undocumented (though self-evident), and the parameter's type/default behavior isn't fully explained. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: retrieving items within one list. Distinguishes from get_lists (which returns lists, not items). However, it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate from sibling add_item/update_item/remove_items beyond the 'get' verb, so it falls short of a 5.

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 default behavior (excludes completed items) implies context for when to use include_completed, but there's no explicit statement of when to use this vs alternatives like get_lists or update_item. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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