item_get_all

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but never explicitly states it is non-destructive. There is no mention of return format, pagination, or scope of 'all media items' (e.g., across all tracks or just the current project). This lack of detail hinders the agent's understanding.

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 extremely succinct: a single sentence plus an Args section. Every part is necessary and there is no redundant information. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and parameter. However, it omits details like whether the returned items include all types (e.g., audio, MIDI) and the exact context (e.g., items in the current project only). Some additional context would improve completeness.

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?

The schema provides no description for the parameter, so the description compensates by explaining 'track_index: Track filter (-1=all).' This clearly defines the parameter's purpose and default value, adding significant meaning.

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 the tool retrieves all media items with an optional track filter. The verb 'Get' and resource 'media items' are specific. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'item_get_info' or 'selection_get_selected_items', which could cause confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention that for a single item's details, 'item_get_info' might be more appropriate. This omission reduces the tool's usability for an agent.

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