miro_list_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the non-obvious fact that the call 'Requires user approval' and enumerates the returned fields. It does not describe pagination/truncation behavior beyond what max_results implies, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the capability and its scope come first, followed by routing guidance. The approval caveat is a single short clause that earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (id, type, text, color, position, size, frame). Combined with the scope, sibling routing, and approval requirement, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains type, frame_id, board_id and max_results in detail. The description restates the type and frame filters at a high level without adding format or edge-case detail, which is the baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read items on one Miro board) plus the two narrowing scopes (single item type, single frame). It explicitly distinguishes itself from miro_get_items (by-id reads) and miro_create_items (writes), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Names both alternatives and the condition that selects each: 'Use miro_get_items to read specific items by id, and miro_create_items to add to the board.' It also flags that user approval is required, which affects when the call can proceed.

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