list_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation by describing the output fields, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it mention any side effects, auth requirements, or performance characteristics. The implied read-only behavior is clear but could be more explicit.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and output fields; the second gives a direct usage instruction. It is perfectly sized and front-loaded for quick agent consumption.

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 zero-parameter, list-all tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It names the output fields, tells when to call it, and implies a non-mutating operation. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has little to add beyond the schema. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). The description usefully explains the output semantics (fields included), which is a nice bonus. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every stored document'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, title, concept count, flashcard count, quiz count). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_material or get_study_items by positioning it as a full-list discovery operation.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Call this at the start of a session to discover document ids.' It gives a clear context of use, though it doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or point to an alternative tool. For a simple listing tool this is strong guidance.

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