list_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and filters, with no information about pagination, ordering, inclusion of closed/deleted items, or response format. The tool's behavior beyond the obvious 'returns a list' is unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and key filter options without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers three of them. It does not explain what 'items' includes relative to sibling tools, how 'current project' is determined, or what happens with limit/tag_mode. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of many similar list tools, the description leaves significant 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 coverage is 100% (every parameter has a description), but those descriptions are tautological ('tags parameter', etc.). The tool description adds meaningful mapping for item_type, status, and tags by mentioning them as filters, but tag_mode and limit are left unexplained. This partially compensates for the generic schema descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List', the resource 'items', and the scope 'for current project'. It also enumerates the specific filter dimensions ('type/status/tag'), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from broader list tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list items in the current project with optional filters) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention sibling tools like get_todos or get_active_items, so usage context is only implicit.

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