list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not say whether all documents are returned, whether results are paginated or capped, or what access the caller needs to the teamspace.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the scope stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being truly information-dense.

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?

With no output schema and a sibling that performs a similar retrieval, the description should clarify return shape, pagination, and the list-vs-query boundary. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool an agent will frequently need to choose between.

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 coverage is only 50%: teamspaceId is documented (albeit tautologically as 'Teamspace id') but the workspace parameter has no description anywhere. The phrase 'in a teamspace' merely restates the required parameter and contributes no format, scoping, or interaction detail for either parameter.

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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (documents) and states the scope (in a teamspace), so the agent knows exactly what the call returns conceptually. It stops short of naming or contrasting with the sibling query_documents, so the list-vs-search distinction must be inferred from the names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than query_documents, which is the obvious alternative for retrieving documents. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no signal about whether pagination or result limits apply.

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