list_list_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It implies a read-only listing but does not explain pagination, filter behavior, default output shape, or whether expand_fields is actually accepted—and the schema suggests it is not. There is no annotation contradiction, but the transparency is minimal.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but the second sentence does not fully earn its place because it references a parameter not present in the schema. It is compact, but the questionable sentence prevents a higher score.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this definition is too thin: it lacks parameter semantics, sibling differentiation, and behavioral details. An agent would need to open the schema or rely on external knowledge to invoke it correctly beyond the two required IDs.

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 this description needed to explain top, filter, list_id, and site_id; it only situates the operation in a SharePoint list, which loosely maps to site_id/list_id but leaves top and filter unexplained. The one parameter hint (expand_fields=true) is absent from the schema, so it is not actionable.

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 a clear resource ('items in a SharePoint list'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling list_list_items_with_fields, and the mention of expand_fields makes the intended variant slightly ambiguous.

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?

Aside from the instruction to 'use expand_fields=true to get column values'—which refers to a parameter that is not present in the supplied input schema—there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over list_list_items_with_fields or when to use filter/top. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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