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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral nuance about project resolution from a local bilg.config.json. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, return shape, or pagination behavior, but 'List' implies a non-mutating query.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single relevant configuration nuance. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description is adequate for a basic list operation, covering purpose and the key projectName behavior. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the agent still lacks clarity on return format, pagination, sorting, and limit semantics.

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 needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It covers tags and projectName and hints at pathPrefix with 'folder', but it never explains limit or the exact pathPrefix-to-folder mapping. Parameter names help, but the compensation is incomplete.

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 action ('List documents in a project') and the resource, with optional filters by folder or tags. It is clear about what the tool returns but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_documents or get_document, so it misses the top score.

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 implies this is the tool to use for listing documents and gives a useful rule about preferring a VSCode config's projectName. However, it never says when to prefer search_documents or get_document, nor does it provide any explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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