workspace_list_documents

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond the annotation: results are restricted to 'allowed' documents (implying permission filtering) and pagination is driven by an 'opaque cursor'. It does not say what the cursor's opacity implies for stability or what the response contains, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Verb, resource, scope, and mechanism all land in one pass with nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and for a read-only listing the description covers scope and paging. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit guidance on alternatives and on the pageSize parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It conveys the two most important semantics, workspace scoping (workspaceId) and the opaque cursor for pagination, but says nothing about pageSize or its default/max bounds, leaving one of three parameters unaddressed.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('allowed SVG/SVGZ document paths within one workspace'), including the return filter (allowed SVG/SVGZ) and pagination mechanism. It is distinguishable from workspace_list, but never explicitly says how it differs from that sibling, keeping it below 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?

Usage is implied: list documents belonging to a given workspace. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer workspace_list or document_import_svg, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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