List documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does so by specifying the sort order ('Newest first'), the filtering behavior ('case-insensitive substring'), and the output fields. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation. Minor gaps remain about folder scope or error handling, but it is well above the baseline.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action and resource, and every phrase adds value: the folder location, the output fields, the filter behavior, and the sort order. No unnecessary words.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the returned fields and ordering. It does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., empty folder, subfolder recursion), but these are not critical for core usage. The low complexity means this level of detail is sufficient.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'filter' with a matching description. The tool description repeats the case-insensitive substring semantics but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource (saved resumes/cover letters in the Resumes folder), and the returned attributes (name, size, modified date). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling document tools like read_document, save_document, or delete_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 usage: use this tool to see available resumes/cover letters with an optional substring filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like read_document or save_document, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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