List documents

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the deterministic sort order ('most recently updated first'), which is a genuinely useful trait, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or truncation behavior for a listing 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?

Two tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (scope, ordering, use case) 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?

For a simple zero-required-param list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and intent adequately. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or how results are shaped when listing across all notebooks.

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 100% with only 2 params, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the notebook-scoping concept ('in one notebook' / 'workspace') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide, including the default limit.

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') plus scope ('in the workspace or in one notebook') and ordering ('most recently updated first'). This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like create_document/rename_document, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the read sibling search_notes beyond the word 'searching'.

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 'Useful for browsing what exists before searching' implies when to use it relative to searching, but it never names search_notes as the alternative nor states exclusions. Usage is suggested rather than prescribed.

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