list_docs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and the word "all" is the only signal that the listing is complete rather than truncated. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result size limits, which matter for a listing over a potentially large vault. Return values are covered by the output schema, which keeps this from being a larger gap.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope stated first and the usage hint second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read-only listing with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the intended workflow position. The only real omissions are the vault_name format and pagination behavior, which are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter, and it partially does by tying the listing to "a specific vault." It does not clarify whether vault_name is a display name, slug, or identifier, or what happens with an unknown vault, so half the parameter's meaning is still implicit.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List all indexed documents") and scopes it to "a specific vault," so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It implies separation from search-type siblings but never names one, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

It states a clear usage context: call this to understand what knowledge is available before performing a search, which positions the tool as a pre-query discovery step. It offers no explicit when-not guidance and does not name the alternative (e.g., query) that you would use instead once you know the contents.

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