List documents in a workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the detail that documents are 'currently embedded (searchable)', which is useful, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, output format, pagination, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the parameter note is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (single parameter, no output schema), but the description omits information about the return format and any prerequisites like authentication. While the sibling check_auth hints at auth needs, the description itself does not address it. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 coverage is 100% — the workspace parameter is fully documented with 'Workspace name or slug (from list_workspaces)'. The description's 'Accepts a workspace name or slug' repeats the schema without adding meaningful new semantics. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('documents') with a clarifying qualifier ('currently embedded (searchable)') that distinguishes it from siblings like list_workspaces and query_workspace. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the sibling names. There is no mention of conditions or exclusion criteria.

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