workspace_list_documents

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds the 'opaque cursor' detail and the 'allowed' filter, which are behavioral hints. It does not explain pagination mechanics, error cases, or sorting, but the presence of an output schema handles return structure. The added context is modest, hence a 3.

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?

One sentence encapsulates the core function and the cursor mechanism without fluff. It is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action. Slightly more structure (e.g., separating the pagination note) would improve readability, but it earns a 4 for brevity.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, but the description is missing critical usage context: how to paginate (does the response include a next cursor?), what 'allowed' means (permission filtering?), and whether paths are absolute or relative. These are important for an agent to use the tool correctly and are not fully evident from the schema alone. A 3 reflects these 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only hints at workspace (via 'within one workspace') and cursor ('opaque cursor'), but does not explain pageSize, its default/max, or how to use the cursor for pagination (e.g., pass it back from the response). This is a significant gap for a 3-param tool.

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 states a specific verb (lists), resource (allowed SVG/SVGZ document paths), and scope (within one workspace). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling workspace_list (which enumerates workspaces) and document_inspect (for individual documents). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context (one workspace, allowed paths) and implies its use for enumerating documents in a workspace. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools (e.g., 'use document_inspect for file details'), so no exclusions are stated.

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