list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payload shape ('metadata and resource counts'), which implies a read-only enumeration, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, auth requirements, or result limits for a tool whose name advertises 'List all'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter list tool, though it leaves obvious questions (pagination, scope) unaddressed rather than being maximally dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names what is returned (metadata and resource counts), and for a zero-parameter listing tool that is largely sufficient. It falls short only on enumeration behavior such as pagination or completeness guarantees.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has no semantics to add to and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds only the output-content hint, which is not a parameter concern.

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 (List) and resource (source documents/books) and even previews the return content (metadata and resource counts). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from generic siblings like 'list' or 'list_endpoints'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives such as 'list', 'get', or 'search', nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and one-line description.

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