move_items_to_list_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions that items can include samples/subsamples and other containers, and that it returns success status and results per item, which adds some context. However, it omits critical details like permission requirements, error handling, whether moves are atomic or batch, or side effects on source containers—significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and concise, using bullet-like sections (Usage, Items, Returns) to present information efficiently. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the core purpose more prominently.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers basic purpose and return indication but lacks details on parameters, error cases, and behavioral nuances. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is only adequate for minimal understanding.

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 the description must compensate but fails to do so adequately. It does not explain what target_container_id or item_ids represent, their formats, or constraints (e.g., valid IDs, array limits). The mention of 'items' in the description loosely relates to item_ids but lacks specificity, leaving parameters largely undocumented beyond the schema's structural definition.

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's purpose as moving multiple items to a list-based container, specifying both the action (move) and resource (items to list-based container). It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_items_to_grid_container_by_column by specifying the container type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all grid container siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides some usage context with 'Organize items in simple containers without specific positioning,' implying this tool is for basic organization versus precise placement. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer from context rather than receiving clear directives.

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