list_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key safety trait: 'Always safe to call; never writes anything.' It also reveals the return shape (paging metadata, applied filters, records) and how to detect more pages. It omits auth/permission requirements, but for a read-only list tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return/paging advice then parameter guidance. No filler, though 'Search or list' hedges where one precise verb would be cleaner.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description thoughtfully covers paging. But for an 11-parameter tool with 0% schema documentation and no annotations, the description leaves too many filter parameters unexplained to be considered complete.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only alludes to q and to 'dedicated filter arguments for known IDs or tags'; scope, state, sort, order, limit, and offset are never explained in prose or schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search or list elabFTW database items (resources)', which separates it from list_experiments and list_item_types by naming the resource type. The duality of 'search or list' is slightly muddy but an agent can still identify this as the general item-listing tool.

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?

Offers parameter-level guidance ('Use the dedicated filter arguments for known IDs or tags instead of q'), which is useful. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over get_item or resolve_entity_by_query, so broader routing is left to inference.

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