list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing indexed PDFs) and the optional filter, but does not mention any edge cases, performance implications, or that it is a read-only operation. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It conveys the essential information without any redundancy or 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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description adequately explains what it does and the filtering option. While it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, that gap is covered under usage guidelines. For its complexity, it is complete.

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 input schema has only one parameter 'discipline' with no description. The description adds meaning by stating it is an optional filter, thereby explaining the parameter's purpose. It does not specify allowed values or format, but the term 'disciplina' is self-explanatory in context.

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 tool lists all indexed PDFs with an optional filter by discipline. The verb 'Lista' and resource 'PDFs indexados' are specific, and the scope 'todos' distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_documents or cross_topic_search.

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: it is for listing all PDFs, optionally narrowed by discipline. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over sibling tools like search_documents or get_index_stats, nor does it state any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than directly specified.

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