list_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that only metadata is returned and no content, which is a key behavioral trait. It also implies a read-only operation, though it does not mention pagination or rate limits.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without any redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with no parameters and a simple list operation. It specifies the exact output fields (id, page count, processing state), so the agent knows what to expect. No additional context is needed.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, the baseline score of 3 applies, and there is no additional parameter information to add since none 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'documents in the library', and specifies the returned fields (id, page count, processing state). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_library' by emphasizing 'every document' rather than a 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 provides a clear guideline by stating 'Metadata only, no content,' which informs the agent about the nature of the response. While it does not explicitly contrast with search_library, the purpose itself sufficiently implies when to use this tool for listing all documents.

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