op_list_documents

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral facts: APIv3 has no create/delete for documents, documents are read/updated only, 'all' searches every project even when OPENPROJECT_PROJECT_ID is set, and results are newest first. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the operation will and will not do.

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?

Three focused sentences: purpose/ordering, entity definition/API constraint, and the project special case. The most actionable information is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a read-only list operation, the description plus fully-documented schema covers purpose, ordering, scoping, and domain semantics. It does not describe the response shape, and there is no output schema, but the phrase 'list documents' plus the document definition makes the expected return sufficiently clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds at most the nuance that project:'all' overrides OPENPROJECT_PROJECT_ID and the 'newest first' default behavior, which is useful but not a major addition beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List documents (the Documents module), newest first.' It also clarifies the document entity and notes APIv3's read/update-only scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like op_get_document and op_update_document.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list documents) and provides useful domain constraints ('no document create or delete (UI-only), so documents are read and updated only'), but it never explicitly names alternatives such as op_get_document for a single document or op_update_document for modifications. Usage guidance is therefore mostly implied rather than stated.

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