list_pdf_documents

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'list'. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the listing is paginated, what fields are returned, ordering defaults, error handling, or if it supports filtering beyond the 'type' parameter. This is a significant gap for a list tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action. It is efficient, but it may be too brief considering the lack of behavioral details. Nonetheless, no extra words are wasted.

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?

Given the simple nature of a list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., just names, full objects), or whether it returns all items or supports pagination. The presence of sibling list tools with similar names makes this lack of detail more impactful.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('type' and 'sort'). However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's minimal labels. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.

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 'Lista' (list) and the resource 'PDF documenti/template caricati su HEU' (PDF documents/templates uploaded to HEU). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_heu_documents (which lists all HEU documents) and list_pdf_document_placeholders (which lists placeholders within a PDF document).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., list_heu_documents for non-PDF documents), but no exclusions or context are given. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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