list_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional search query' which hints at functionality, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what the output looks like. For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place: 'List items' (action+resource), 'on Qiita' (context), 'with optional search query' (key capability). There's no fluff or redundancy.

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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'items' refers to (articles? posts?), doesn't mention authentication requirements, doesn't describe the return format, and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional search query' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List items') and resource ('on Qiita'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the optional search capability, which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_user_items', 'list_tag_items', or 'list_authenticated_user_items', which all list items with different filters.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that list items (e.g., 'list_user_items', 'list_tag_items'), there's no indication whether this is a general listing tool, a search-focused tool, or how it differs from other listing tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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