List documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('list'), the absence of content in results, and that ids feed a follow-up fetch. It does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or the exact response shape beyond ids, which would increase 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and the second explains both filter modes and the downstream use of returned ids. Everything earns 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?

Covers the main usage, both filter modes, and the relationship to huly_get_document. Since there is no output schema, the exact fields beyond 'ids' are not stated, and limit-based pagination is not mentioned, but for a simple listing tool the description is close to complete.

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 67%; parentId and teamspaceId already have descriptive schema text, and the tool description largely paraphrases them, adding little new meaning. The limit parameter has no description, but its default/min/max constraints convey enough; the description does not address it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List documents without their content.' It clearly scopes the tool as a metadata-only listing, and the last sentence links returned ids to huly_get_document, implicitly distinguishing it from content retrieval siblings.

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?

Gives concrete context: filter by teamspaceId for a single space, by parentId for child documents, and it points downstream to huly_get_document. However, it does not contrast with huly_search_documents or state when listing is preferable to searching, so no exclusion guidance is provided.

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