list_project_items

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'lists' items, implying a read-only operation, but it does not add behavioral context such as performance overhead, pagination, or any side effects. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the usage hint is concise. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity of the tool (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could mention that siblings like get_bin_contents offer targeted views, but the 'all' phrasing and 'discover available media' provide sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with explicit parameter descriptions for includeBins and includeMetadata. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage nuance beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'lists' and the resource 'media items, bins, and assets in the current Premiere Pro project'. It explicitly says 'all', distinguishing it from more specific siblings like get_bin_contents and search_project_items. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clear context: 'Use this to discover available media before performing operations.' This tells when it is appropriate, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use it. No mention of siblings like get_bin_contents, though the 'all' wording implies the difference.

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