get_input_properties_list_property_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the property is a 'dynamic list property' and gives an example, adding some context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or permissions, leaving gaps for a getter with no annotation safety signals.

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 brief, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a well-organized Args docstring. Every sentence is informative, including the illustrative example, with no unnecessary filler.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description explains the tool's core function and parameter semantics adequately. However, it does not describe the structure or type of the returned items, nor any conditions where the request might fail, leaving moderate gaps for complete understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides terse one-line definitions for both parameters ('Name of the input', 'Name of the list property'), and the example 'displays' gives a concrete hint for property_name. Yet these largely restate the parameter names and do not elaborate on types or expected formats.

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 'Get the items of a dynamic list property on an input' with a concrete example ('available displays for a display-capture source'). This specifies both the action and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_input_settings or open_input_properties_dialog.

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 with the example of display-capture sources, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping 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.