list_documents

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful context about the `duplicate_file_names` output flag, explaining its cause (interrupted save) and the cleanup path (write_document with overwrite=true). This helps the agent interpret results and plan next steps, though it does not fully disclose all output behavior.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and includes additional relevant detail without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value, making it appropriately concise.

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 should explain return values more fully. It mentions one specific output field (`duplicate_file_names`) but does not describe the overall response structure or document fields. The tool is simple, so the current description is barely adequate but leaves gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any detail about the `project_id` parameter—its format, meaning, or how to obtain it. The phrase 'in a project' is the only hint, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic grounding for the sole required parameter.

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 action and resource: 'List the documents in a project.' It uses a specific verb and identifies what is being listed, which distinguishes it from siblings like read_document (single document) and project-level tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this to list all documents' or when to prefer it over read_document or list_projects. The reference to write_document is about cleanup behavior, not about when to invoke this tool.

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