items-list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions token usage but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or the impact of excluding data. The phrase 'all items' may mislead about large result handling.

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?

A single sentence that immediately conveys the primary function and a key usage tip. No wasted words; structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the tool description should compensate more. It omits details about response structure, pagination, and default behavior (e.g., whether exclude_data defaults to true). The complexity of 5 parameters demands richer context.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'use filters', which is a general hint. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not deepen understanding of individual parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'case file items for a case'. It differentiates from sibling list tools like items-list_children by specifying 'for a case' and implying case-level scope. The mention of filters adds specificity.

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 advises 'Use filters to reduce token usage', giving a reason to use filters but not explicitly stating when to prefer this tool over alternatives like items-search or items-list_children. No when-not guidance is provided.

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