item_get_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that items include source_file and source_filename for audio, empty strings for MIDI, and a hard ceiling of 2000 for max_results. It also advises narrowing with track_index if truncated. However, it does not mention sorting or pagination behavior.

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 well-structured with a summary, a note about item fields, and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral notes about source files and result limits. It lacks error cases or return format details, but for a list tool this is adequate.

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 adds all meaning. It explains track_index as a track filter (-1 for all) and max_results with default and hard ceiling, including a practical tip about chop-heavy projects. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 all media items' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like item_get_info by indicating it returns a list of all items with source file details. The filtering by track is explicit.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like item_get_info or item_select. It mentions filtering and max_results but lacks guidance on when to choose this over other item operations. The context signals show many item tools, yet no comparison is provided.

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