zas_list_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-grant requirement and that results are ordered most-recent-first, which is genuinely beyond the schema. However, the final sentence about the owner seeing sent items with the '>_ agent mark' describes send behavior, not this list tool, so it is confusing rather than informative; return format and pagination remain undisclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, but the last one is off-topic for a list operation and consumes space without helping the agent decide or invoke. The essential scoping and auth facts are front-loaded, so structure is sound; content economy is not.

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 simple read-only two-parameter tool this covers purpose, auth, and ordering. Missing are return-shape hints (what an 'item' contains), pagination or cursor behavior, and any note on erroring when the grant is absent or the channel is unknown — gaps that matter more because no annotations or output schema exist.

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 both `channel` and `limit` (1–50, default 20) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the implicit notion of recency ordering and no format or id-vs-name nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Uses a specific verb plus resource plus scope: 'List the most recent items in one of the owner's Zas channels.' An agent immediately knows this is a read-list operation scoped to a channel. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like zas_get_item or zas_receive_direct, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Needs a grant that includes reading' states an auth prerequisite, which is useful. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over zas_get_item (single item) or zas_receive_direct (direct messages), and no exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly directed.

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