list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose pagination and filtering behavior, but it does not describe the output shape, ordering, or potential side effects. For a simple read-only list operation this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical packs the two key behavioral modifiers, pagination and filtering, efficiently.

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 only optional parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is listed, that results are paginated, and what filters exist. It does not describe the return schema, but the tool's simplicity and 'List indexed documents' wording make the behavior sufficiently clear.

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. It clarifies that source and path_prefix act as filters, but it provides no additional meaning for limit and offset beyond their self-explanatory names and schema defaults.

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 begins with the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'indexed documents', then adds distinctive behaviors: pagination and filtering by source/path prefix. This makes the tool's function clear and separates it from siblings like query or search, which imply retrieval rather than enumeration.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need to enumerate indexed documents rather than query or search them. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it.

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