itglue_list_related_items

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or that it is read-only. The schema includes pageSize, pageNumber, and formatOptions, but description fails to mention these. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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?

Description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral info without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return format. It does not mention pagination or response reduction options despite schema having pageSize, pageNumber, and formatOptions. Also lacks mention of authentication or read-only nature. Incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only states the overall purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as 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?

Description clearly states it lists items related to a parent resource, mentioning example resource types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like itglue_create_related_item and itglue_delete_related_item. However, it could be more explicit about listing relationships rather than the items themselves.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The description implies usage for viewing relationships, but no exclusions or context about prerequisites (e.g., required parentType and parentId) are provided. Siblings include other list operations, but this is the only one for related items, so implied usage is adequate.

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