List all documents in a deal's data room.
Shows what files and content have been uploaded for a deal, along with their processing status.
Args: deal_id: The deal ID (from sieve_deals or sieve_dataroom_add).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deal_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds that the tool shows 'processing status', which is extra context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or ordering. This is adequate but not rich.
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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary followed by a brief elaboration and an arguments section. Every sentence carries meaning without redundancy.
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 param, read-only, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It could mention potential large result sets or filtering, but the output schema likely handles returns. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 only a string type for deal_id with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description compensates fully by explaining the meaning ('The deal ID') and telling where to get it ('from sieve_deals or sieve_dataroom_add'). This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 the action ('List all documents'), the resource ('deal's data room'), and the outcome ('shows what files and content have been uploaded... along with their processing status'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sieve_dataroom_add (which adds documents) and sieve_deals (which lists deals).
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 for when to use the tool (to list documents in a data room) and gives helpful guidance on obtaining the deal_id from sibling tools (sieve_deals or sieve_dataroom_add). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and the source hint for the parameter is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct role in the screening workflow: dataroom listing vs adding, deal listing, screening, status polling, results retrieval, memo generation, and usage checking. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools share the 'sieve_' prefix, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are pure nouns (sieve_deals, sieve_results), one combines resource and action (sieve_dataroom_add), and one is a verb (sieve_screen). Still, the names are readable and predictable once the domain is understood.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped and covers the entire lifecycle of a startup screening operation without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The core workflow is complete: add documents, screen, check status, retrieve results, generate memo, and list deals. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete for data room documents or a dedicated deal detail view, but agents can work around these.
