list_user_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 listing items but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, error handling, or what 'items' entail (e.g., format, fields). This is a significant gap for a read operation with no structured safety hints.

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 front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. It uses clear language without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and multiple sibling alternatives. It lacks context on authentication requirements, pagination details beyond schema defaults, error scenarios, and the nature of returned 'items' (e.g., data structure). For a read tool in a complex API, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 parameters (user_id, page, per_page) with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'user_id' identifies the user whose items are listed, which is already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('items posted by a specific user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_items' (general listing) and 'list_authenticated_user_items' (self-focused), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't specify what type of 'items' (e.g., posts, comments, projects), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_items' (all items) or 'list_authenticated_user_items' (current user's items). The description implies usage for a specific user's items but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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