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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It discloses that documents carry a kind, that kinds include dbml and mermaid, and that both render on the same board, which is valuable context beyond the annotation.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the additional detail about kinds earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one well-documented parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It conveys what is returned, the ordering trait, and the semantic distinction between document kinds without over-explaining.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single projectId parameter documented as 'Project id (uuid).', the schema already fully explains the parameter. The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('a project's documents') and adds useful detail about content, ordering, and document kinds. It distinguishes the tool from sibling listing tools by focusing on documents rather than diagrams, drawings, or tables, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a clear context for use: listing a project's documents with their content, ordered, and explains the kinds of documents returned. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like list_diagrams, but the intended use case is clear.

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