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. It clearly states that the tool returns a list of document names, implying a non-destructive read operation. The phrasing 'Get the list' communicates safety, and no hidden side effects are suggested. It does lack an explicit statement that it does not modify state, but for a list-only tool this is adequate.

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 compact, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant text. It front-loads the core purpose and directly states the return value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool—zero parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward list of names—the description is fully complete. It provides all necessary information without requiring additional behavioral or contextual notes.

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, which sets a baseline of 4. The description naturally adds no parameter details, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing missing. The description's mention of the return type compensates for the lack of parameter context.

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 action (Get) and resource (open documents in FreeCAD), and explicitly notes the return type (list of document names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_objects and get_parts_list, which operate on different entities within the application.

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 implied usage is when you need the names of currently open documents, and it is a read operation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., get_objects for detailed object information), leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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