list_documentsList documents in a project in reverse chronological order with IDs and names, so you can choose a file to convert or edit, or use as a source for a new document.
The latest documents made in this project (newest first), with their id and name. Use an id as file_id to convert or edit one, or in source_file_ids to create from it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many, 1–100 (default 20). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: results are project-scoped, sorted newest first, and carry id and name. No pagination or exhaustion behavior is mentioned, which is the only real gap.
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?
Two tight sentences, no filler. The core output (id + name, newest first) is front-loaded and the follow-up sentence covers downstream use.
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?
Single optional parameter, no output schema, and the description itself describes the return shape (id and name) plus ordering and scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the limit parameter already documents range and default. The description only implies ordering is fixed ('newest first'), which is a small semantic addition beyond the schema — baseline 3 fits.
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 and resource plus scope and ordering: 'latest documents made in this project (newest first), with their id and name.' An agent immediately knows what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_document, but the 'latest/made in this project' framing distinguishes it from a single-document fetch.
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?
Gives concrete downstream routing: 'Use an id as file_id to convert or edit one, or in source_file_ids to create from it,' which points at convert_file, edit_document, and create_document. It stops short of stating when to pick this over get_document when the id is already known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.