list_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature (via 'List') and the scope ('every Plaid item'), which is a clear behavioral statement. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or error conditions, but for a simple listing operation, the core behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it maximally concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently explains what is returned (a list of all Plaid items) and the source scope. It doesn't elaborate on return values, but that is not necessary given the tool's straightforward nature. It scores slightly below 5 because it leaves some implicit assumptions about the 'item' structure.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters since there are none. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no misleading information.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every Plaid item'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_item (singular item) and list_transactions (transactions). The scope 'every' and source 'via the plaid CLI' provide unambiguous intent.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_item or list_transactions. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool over the siblings.

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