List portfolio items

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds only one behavioral trait: items are returned 'in their current display order.' It does not state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or safe. Missing details on permissions, side effects, pagination, or error behavior. The description is insufficient for a mutation-free list operation.

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 very short (12 words), but it is a noun phrase fragment rather than a complete sentence. While concise, it is not front-loaded with a clear action or structured for quick scanning. It could be more effective with a verb-first sentence.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not specify that the output is a list, what each item contains (project vs portfolio), handling of invalid inputs, or any pagination. For a simple list tool, the agent still requires more contextual cues to invoke it correctly.

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 for the single parameter portfolio_gid is 100% (the schema includes a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. Per guidelines, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description contributes nothing beyond that.

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 is a noun phrase ('The projects/portfolios inside a portfolio...') rather than an explicit action statement. The title 'List portfolio items' implies the action, but the description itself lacks a verb defining what the tool does. It is not completely clear that this tool returns a list of items, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like portfolio_add_item or portfolio_remove_item.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are siblings like portfolio_add_item, portfolio_remove_item, asana_find, and others, but the description offers no comparison or context for choice. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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