miro_list_items

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that items are listed with a max of 50 and supports pagination via cursor, but does not detail response sorting or ordering. Consistent and informative enough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief 'USE WHEN' line. Every part adds value without redundancy, and the key info is front-loaded.

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 rich schema (100% coverage), output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, limitations, and alternatives. It doesn't mention response ordering, but that is not critical for tool selection. Adequate for an agent.

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 well-described in the input schema. The description reiterates the limit but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score applies.

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 tool lists items on a Miro board with a maximum of 50 items. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'miro_list_all_items' (auto-pagination) and 'miro_search_board' (text search), making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use 'miro_list_all_items' for all items with auto-pagination and 'miro_search_board' for text search. The 'USE WHEN' line gives practical examples, aiding correct tool selection.

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