list_loaded

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the concrete return shape (alias, type, item count, size, path) and the empty-state behavior (returns a message if none are loaded). It does not mention cost, ordering guarantees, or whether the listing reflects session state versus persisted state, so it falls short of full transparency.

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?

One sentence for purpose followed by a compact Returns block; the core action is front-loaded and nothing is padded. The return summary is mildly redundant with the output schema but is short enough to earn 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?

A parameterless read-only listing tool with an output schema and complete schema coverage needs little more than a clear purpose statement and a note on empty results, both of which are present. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 and resource ("List all currently loaded JSON documents with their metadata"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings such as load_json, unload_json, or the query-oriented tools (get_value, jsonpath_query). An agent can identify the tool's role without consulting the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to discover which documents are available before querying, but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or names any alternative (e.g., distinct_paths or describe for other introspection). Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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