Collection Items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool is a read-only list operation and that it only returns top-level items, which is useful. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the result contains full item details, but the schema partially covers cursor and limit.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. There is no redundant wording, and it earns its place without padding.

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 simplicity, complete parameter schema, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for basic invocation. It could be slightly stronger by noting pagination expectations or what 'top-level' excludes, but nothing essential is missing for a straightforward listing tool.

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 parameter meanings are already documented: collection_key identifies the collection, limit controls page size, and cursor continues pagination. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and a specific resource, 'top-level items in one collection,' so its purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_library or get_item, but the phrasing is precise enough to avoid serious 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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you want the top-level contents of a specific collection, and use the collection_key from list_collections as the schema notes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_library, semantic_search, or get_item.

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