Paragraphs Item List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a real gotcha: erroneous type filtering answers 400 on every call. It does not cover auth requirements, pagination behavior, or return shape (though an output schema exists), so it is informative but not complete.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the follow-up is short. The second paragraph is slightly redundant, restating the missing-field fact twice ('does not exist' / 'there is no such field'), but overall it earns its space.

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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical semantic wrinkle of type filtering. It leaves pagination parameters unexplained, which is a minor gap given defaults are visible in the schema.

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 4 parameters. The description meaningfully explains the filters/type mechanism (addressing paragraph--{type} rather than a filter field), which compensates for part of the gap, but page_limit and page_offset are never mentioned and the generic `filters` object's shape remains undocumented.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List paragraph items') with the optional filter scope stated up front. The second paragraph implicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling paragraphs_type_list by explaining that a paragraph's type is its bundle, not a separate item field, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

It states the selection context (use this to enumerate paragraph items, optionally narrowed by type) and gives an explicit negative rule: filter[paragraphs_type] does not exist and returns 400. It does not mention when to prefer paragraphs_item_get for a single item, so it is one step short of a full when/when-not guide.

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