scf_list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it explicitly marks the operation as read-only, requires only viewer role, and enumerates the returned document attributes (lifecycle status, section counts, unresolved conflicts, pending retirements, staleness). It does not describe pagination or exact response shape, but the main behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 one tightly structured sentence that front-loads the action, then supplies the read-only context and the specific output facets in a compact colon-separated list. No words are wasted and all content is relevant.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by listing the key return fields and clarifying the read-only nature. It is complete for basic invocation, though it could add a bit more around the expected response container, pagination, or how it differs from scf_get_document.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents org_id, status, and document_type with examples and a source hint for org_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'List generated ISMS documents', with a clear read-only scope. It is distinguishable from scf_get_document (single document) and scf_list_document_generators (generator definitions), though it does not explicitly name or contrast these 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?

The phrase 'read — viewer role' gives useful context for when this tool is appropriate, and the listing intent is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like scf_get_document for retrieving a single document.

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