autocad_list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add genuine behavioral context: it discloses the return shape (data.applications, data.documents with window/process identity) and a real limitation ("COM may not expose every same-version AutoCAD process"). It does not explicitly confirm it is a side-effect-free read, but for a list tool the disclosure of the enumeration caveat is meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it lists, then what it returns, then the caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return structure and a key limitation, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret it correctly. It could be slightly richer by noting it is a read-only, side-effect-free probe, but nothing essential is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantic to add and the baseline is 4. The description's note about window/process identity relates to outputs rather than inputs, which is harmless but not compensating for any parameter gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List ... AutoCAD applications and their open documents") with the qualifying scope "COM-reachable". It is distinguishable from siblings like autocad_status or autocad_list_layers, though it never explicitly names a sibling or contrasts with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "for target selection" and "list ... applications" implies this is a discovery step preceding autocad_attach, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., autocad_status), which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3.

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