List artifacts this principal owns, newest-updated first; account-visible artifacts owned by others are intentionally excluded. Returns metadata and lifecycle counts without loading source. Use get_document for one artifact’s versions, reviews, threads, or source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documents | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, but description adds ordering, intentional exclusion of others' account-visible artifacts, metadata-only behavior, and lifecycle counts. This meaningfully enriches beyond annotations.
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 core purpose and scope, then a helpful pointer to get_document. No wasted words.
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?
Output schema exists, no parameters, annotations present, and description covers return type, ordering, scope, and alternatives. Complete for a list tool.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so nothing to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate; description focuses on behavioral semantics rather than params.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'artifacts this principal owns', clarifies scope (excluded others' artifacts), and specifies ordering. It clearly distinguishes from get_document.
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?
States explicit use case for listing owned artifacts and points to get_document for one artifact's versions/reviews/threads/source, providing clear alternative guidance.
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 targets a distinct action: comment creation vs. reply, review request vs. completion, thread status vs. comment, document read vs. list. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities, and descriptions clarify precise usage.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_comment, complete_review, create_document, get_document, list_documents, list_review_inbox, list_threads, publish_version, reply_to_thread, request_review, set_thread_status). whoami deviates slightly but is a standard, recognizable exception.
12 tools is well within the optimal 3-15 range and appropriately covers the document/review/thread domain without bloat or excessive abstraction. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow.
Core lifecycle is covered: document creation/reading/versioning, review request/completion/inbox, and thread create/reply/status. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit document deletion or metadata update, but these do not hinder primary review workflows.