list_authenticated_user_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination details, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits needed for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loaded with essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, or authentication context, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool correctly. More detail is needed to compensate for the missing structured data.

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%, with both parameters ('page' and 'per_page') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('items posted by the currently authenticated user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_items' (all items) and 'list_user_items' (items for any user), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'currently authenticated user,' suggesting it's for viewing one's own items. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_items' (all items) or 'list_user_items' (items for a specified user). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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