List GLPI items

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the fact that results are paginated; it says nothing about invalid-itemtype behavior, ordering of results, or cost of open-world calls beyond what annotations imply.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and pagination front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the available sibling tools to disambiguate against.

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 simple read-only paginated list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits the return shape (what fields an item entry contains) and does not resolve overlap with glpi_search_items. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, itemtype and start are already documented in the schema (including a rich list of valid itemtype values), while limit is documented only by type/bounds/default. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List items"), scopes it to one itemtype, and adds a concrete example ("all Computers"), plus notes pagination. It does not differentiate from the close sibling glpi_search_items, which likely also enumerates items, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-search distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as glpi_search_items (filtered search) or glpi_get_item (single record). Only the passing example "e.g. all Computers" hints at intent, so the agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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