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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to carry that burden. The description adds workspace-scoped listing and filtering behavior, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result size, or whether metadata versus full content is returned. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and scope, then lists the relevant filters and workspace-resolution options in a compact, scannable way.

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?

With seven optional parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It captures the most important filtering dimensions and workspace selection, though it omits mention of tag filtering and default pagination in prose; these are covered by the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The prose mentions folder, document type, text search, and workspace ID/name selection, which mirrors the schema rather than adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List documents in a workspace,' which clearly defines the operation and scope. It adds useful filter categories, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_documents tool beyond the list-versus-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?

The description implies usage for listing or filtering documents within a workspace, which is adequate contextual guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over search_documents, list_notes, or list_folder_files, and it offers no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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