list_unit_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'List,' but it does not disclose potential permissions, pagination, or exactly what is returned. It adds modest context by naming document types but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It leads with the action and resource, and the parenthetical examples add value without bloat. 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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still lacks explicit guidance on return format or behavior. It names document types but doesn't clarify whether it returns full documents or metadata, or if any filtering is applied. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 provides only a bare unitId parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by tying it to 'an apartment,' implying unitId is the unit/apartment ID. However, it does not explicitly define the parameter or its format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'Properties document trail for an apartment.' It gives concrete examples (HV, heating, tax, prior NK letters) that distinguish it from general file listing tools. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_files or list_unit_versions.

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 the tool is for retrieving a unit's document history, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, making usage guidance only implicit rather than explicit.

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