List all documents (docs, word, notes, pages). Use this when asked to list, find, or search documents, notes, drafts, or written content. Supports pagination, sorting, and filtering by workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 50) | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0) | |
| server_id | No | Filter by server ID, or "personal" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'Supports pagination, sorting, and filtering by workspace.' This maps to the parameters and sets expectations for how the tool operates. It does not describe the return format or any side effects, but for a read-only list tool, this is adequate. The phrase 'List all documents' alongside 'Supports pagination' is slightly nuanced but clarified.
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, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides usage guidance and feature highlights. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 there is no output schema, the description could be expected to explain return values, but 'List' implies a list of documents. It covers the purpose, when to use the tool, and the main features (pagination, sorting, filtering). It does not mention default behaviors (e.g., default sort order or limit) but is reasonably complete for a tool with five optional parameters and no annotations.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary ('pagination, sorting, and filtering by workspace') that groups the parameters and clarifies that server_id represents a workspace. This adds a small amount of semantics beyond the schema but does not go into new depth.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('documents'), and even enumerates the types ('docs, word, notes, pages'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on documents, not sheets or slides, and provides a clear usage trigger.
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 explicitly says to 'Use this when asked to list, find, or search documents, notes, drafts, or written content.' This is clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_sheets or list_slides, nor does it state when not to use the tool. Given the sibling names, the resource distinction is obvious, but the absence of explicit exclusions keeps this at a 4.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: document, sheet, tab, or presentation. Even similar operations like append_rows, append_slides, and append_to_document are clearly differentiated by their intended target.
The naming follows a predictable verb_noun pattern with create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and append_. Minor deviations like append_to_document (uses 'to') and the use of 'slide_presentation' vs 'slides' keep it from being perfectly uniform.
At 23 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range, but each tool serves a clear purpose across three resource types (documents, sheets, slides). The volume is justified by supporting tab-level operations and append functionality.
The server provides full CRUD plus listing for each resource type, along with tab management and append operations. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of a direct 'set cell value' operation and no slide reorder or delete individual slide, but core workflows are well covered.