list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behaviorally relevant context beyond that: the returned fields including the saved? and active? flags, and the crucial rule that all other tools operate on the ACTIVE drawing. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but for a read-only list this is solid added value.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then a dedicated usage block, then a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place; the parenthetical field list and example are compact and informative.

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 not be spelled out, yet the description still confirms the key fields and gives a worked example. For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations and an output schema, nothing an agent needs to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly presents it as a no-argument call (list_documents()) rather than implying hidden inputs.

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: 'Lista os desenhos abertos no AutoCAD' and enumerates the returned fields (nome, caminho, salvo?, ativo?). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_* tools (list_layers, list_block_definitions) by naming AutoCAD open drawings as the resource.

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?

An explicit 'QUANDO USAR' section names the alternative tool (set_active_document) and the exact condition that selects this one: multiple open drawings where the acting target is unknown. It also states the operating assumption that all tools act on the ACTIVE drawing, leaving nothing to inference.

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